8061  '«  'MVf  IVd 
*A  "N  % 


•sojg 


'UBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN   MINNESOTA 

SUMMARY  OF  A  REPORT  PREPARED  FOR  THE  MINNESOTA 

EDUCATION  ASSOCIATION  COMMITTEE  ON  SCHOOL 

TAX  AND  SOURCES  OF  SCHOOL  SUPPORT 


BY 


FLETCHER  HARPER  SWIFT, 

Professor  of  Education  in  the   University  of  Minnesota 
AND 

FRANCES  KELLEY  DEL   PLAINE, 

Author   of  "A   History   of  Public  School  Support   in   Minnesota' 


MINNEAPOLIS,  MINNESOTA 
October,   1922 


o" 


AUTHORS'  EXPLANATORY  NOTE 

Most  of  the  data  used  in  preparing  this  report  have  been 
taken  from  unpublished  tables  furnished  by  the  United  States 
Bureau  of  Education,  from  unpublished  tables  compiled  by  the 
Minnesota  State  Department  of  Education,  and  from  unpub- 
lished reports  of  Minnesota  county  auditors  and  county  super- 
intendents of  schools  on  file  in  the  office  of  the  State  Depart- 
ment of  Education.  Such  unpublished  data  are  always  sub- 
ject to  corrections  of  two  kinds :  those  made  possible  by  fuller 
and  later  data,  and  those  arising  from  the  discovery  of  errors 
after  the  documents  have  been  filed.  Great  care  has  been  used 
to  exclude  all  material  containing  obvious  errors,  and  in  many 
cases  important  data  have  been  verified  by  personal  corre- 
spondence with  the  various  county  officials.  It  has  been 
deemed  preferable  to  use  facts  for  the  most  recent  year  avail- 
able, even  in  spite  of  the  difficulty  involved  in  securing  these 
facts  from  unpublished  documents,  rather  than  to  be  satisfied 
with  published,  but  already  out-of-date  data.  If  any  errors  in 
individual  cases  have  eluded  the  vigilance  of  the  authors,  such 
errors,  it  is  believed,  do  not  affect  the  solution  viewed  in  the 
large,  nor  the  soundness  of  the  conclusions  presented. 

Grateful  acknowledgments  are  due  Commissioner  McCon- 
nell  and  various  members  of  the  State  Department  of  Educa- 
tion ;  to  county  superintendents  throughout  the  state ;  to 
Superintendent  Campton,  of  Two  Harbors ;  and  to  Professor 
Dyer  of  the  College  of  Agriculture  for  cooperation  in  the  as- 
sembling of  the  data  used  in  the  present  study. 

The  complete  report  on  Public  School  Finance  in  Minne- 
sota, from  which  the  present  brief  summary  is  taken,  will  be 
printed  in  full  in  a  forthcoming  volume  of  a  series  of  studies 
to  be  published  by  the  University  of  Minnesota.  The  first 
volume  of  this  series,  Public  School  Finance  in  California  and 
Colorado,  will  be  ready  for  distribution  November  1,  1922. 


505870 


PUBLIC   SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA 

A  CHALLENGE 

The  citizens  of  Minnesota  have  long  been  in  the  habit  of 
referring  with  great  pride  to  her  magnificent  school  system. 
Only  recently,  one  of  the  leading  citizens  of  our  state  was 
quoted  in  one  of  the  Minneapolis  daily  papers  as  saying  that 
Minnesota's  school  system  is  "ten  years  ahead  of  any  other 
state  corresponding  to  ours."  Such  a  statement  is  a  challenge 
to  every  state  in  the  Union  which  considers  itself  comparable 
to  Minnesota.  It  is  also  a  challenge  to  Minnesota  to  make 
good  on  such  a  boast.  Will  such  a  boast  bear  investigation? 

WHERE  MINNESOTA  STANDS 

It  \vould  seem  that  Minnesota  ought  to  be  willing  to  be 
compared  with  Iowa,  North  Dakota,  Nebraska,  South  Dakota, 
and  Wisconsin.  If  we  -take  these  five  states  together  with 
Minnesota,  we  shall  have  a  group  of  six.  In  this  group,  we 
find  that  in  the  year  1920,  Minnesota  stood  fourth,  or  only 
two  ranks  from  the  bottom  of  the  list  as  to  the  amount  of 
money  she  spent  for  each  child  enrolled  in  school,  fifth  as  to 
the  percent  of  her  school  population  actually  enrolled,  and 
sixth,  i.e.,  last  in  the  group,  as  to  the  length  of  school  year  in 
days. 

The  District  of  Columbia  and  forty-eight  states  give  us 
forty-nine  units  composing  our  Union.  Where  does  Minne- 
sota rank  in  this  group  of  forty-nine?  The  Federal  Bureau 
of  Education  gathers  facts  covering  the  entire  United  States. 
The  last  year  for  which  such  facts  have  been  gathered  is  the 
year  1920.  These  facts  have  not  yet  been  published  by  the 
United  States  Bureau  of  Education,  but  are  taken  from  tables 
furnished  privately  to  the  writers  of  the  present  account  by 
the  Bureau  of  Education. 

Perhaps  two  of  the  most  important  questions  in  any 
democracy  are :  first,  how  many  children  of  school  age  are  in 
school,  and  second,  how  much  schooling  is  being  provided  for 
them,  or,  in  other  words,  how  long  is  the  school  term  ? 


AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLAINE 

In  the  year  1920,  Minnesota's  rank  in  the  United  States 
was  twenty-fourth  as  to  the  percent  of  school  population  en- 
rolled. Minnesota  had  an  average  school  year  of  160  days,  and 
ranked  thirty-third  in  the  United  States  in  this  particular. 
This  is  actually  below  the  average  for  the  United  States, 
which  is  161.9  days,  and  compares  very  unfavorably  with 
Iowa's  average  term  of  174  days;  Wisconsin's,  of  175.3  days; 
and  New  York's,  of  188  days.  In  1921,  the  average  pupil  in 
Minnesota  attended  school  136.6  days,  that  is  to  say,  six 
months,  three  weeks,  and  one  day. 

TABLE  1 

MINNESOTA'S  RANK  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  AS 

TO    PERCENT   OF   SCHOOL   POPULATION 

ENROLLED  AND  LENGTH  OF  SCHOOL 

TERM  1890-1920 

RANK  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 
Percent  of 

School  Popula-  Length  of 

Year  tion  Enrolled  School  Term 


1890  

11 

26 

1900  

17 

9 

1910 

22 

23 

1920 

24 

33 

All  data  in  this  table  are  computed  on  the  basis  of  totals  given  in  the 
United  States  Commissioner  of  Education  Report,  1911,  II,  p.  703;  and 
upon  unpublished  data  for  1920,  furnished  by  the  United  States  Bureau 
of  Education. 

From  the  facts  we  have  given,  it  is  clear  that  in  1920, 
there  were  only  twenty-four  states  in  the  Union  which  en- 
rolled a  smaller  proportion  of  their  children  in  public  schools 
and  only  sixteen  states  which  had  a  shorter  average  school 
year  than  Minnesota.  Not  only  is  this  true,  but  Minnesota's 
position  has  grown  steadily  worse  during  the  last  thirty  years, 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  I 


for  in  1890  she  ranked  far  higher  than  in  1920,  namely, 
eleventh  in  the  Union  as  to  the  percent  of  her  school  popula- 
tion which  she  enrolled  and  twenty-sixth  as  to  her  length  of 
school  term.  The  story  of  Minnesota's  steady  decline  in  edu- 
cational standing  is  told  in  Table  1. 

It  begins  to  look  as  if  Minnesota's  pride  in  her  public 
school  system  is  a  pride  based  upon  ignorance  of  what  other 
states  are  doing.  It  will  later  be  shown  that  any  such  pride 
must  be  born  of  ignorance  regarding  the  actual  facts  in 
Minnesota. 

MINNESOTA'S  VAST  INCREASE  IN  SCHOOL 
EXPENDITURE 

One  matter  about  which  the  citizens  of  Minnesota  are  al- 
ways talking  is  how  enormously  school  costs  have  increased 
in  the  past  ten  years.  Figure  1  shows  how  enormous  this  in- 
crease has  actually  been.  Table  2- shows  the  same  facts  pre- 
sented in  a  somewhat  different  form. 


FIGURE  1 

GROWTH  or  TOTAL  EXPENDITURE 
TOR  COMMON  SCHOOLS  IN  MINNESOTA 
S10,000,000       »£Q,QOO.COO       *3QOOQQOO      ^40.000.000 


*50tOOQOOO 


1920 


INCREASE:  IN  TOTAL  X/ALUE 
or  SCHOOL  PROPERTY  IN  MINNESOTA 

*4aooaooo    *eaooaooo     ^00.000.000 


•JQQOOQOOO 


1910 

1920 


INCREASE  IN  TOTAL  EXPENDITURE 
PER  CHILD  CN ROLLED  IN  MINNESOTA 


•100 


.y8f  :;[F{,EJCfl£R  &.:£J¥frT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLAIN E 

TABLE  2 

MINNESOTA'S  INCREASE  IN  EXPENDITURE  AND 
INVESTMENT  FOR  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS,  1910-1920 

Expenditure  Value  of  Schoolhouses* 

Year  Total  Per  Child  Total  Per  Child 


1920 

$38358555 

$76  16 

$74  535  725 

$149.99 

1910 

13  724  437 

31  17 

31  939324 

72.57 

Increase  .  .  . 

$24,634,118 

$44.99 

$42,596,401 

$77.42 

Percent  of 
Increase.  . 

179.5 

144.3 

133.2 

106.7 

*  No  other 

school  property 

valuations 

reported. 

HOW  MINNESOTA'S  INCREASE  COMPARES  WITH 
THAT  OF  OTHER  STATES 

Figure  1  and  Table  2  show  that  Minnesota  has  made  vast 
increases  in  her  expenditures  for  public  schools,  whether  we 
measure  this  expenditure  in  terms  of  totals  or  expenditure  per 
child,  but  let  us  ask  how  Minnesota's  percent  of  increase  in 
total  school  expenditure  compares  with  that  of  other  states. 
For  this  purpose  we  have  again  chosen  a  group  of  states  with 
which  Minnesota  ought  to  be  perfectly  willing  to  be  compared, 
namely,  Montana,  Utah,  South  Dakota,  California,  Iowa,  and 
North  Dakota.  Figure  2  tells  the  story. 

From  Figure  2,  we  see  that  Minnesota  has  little  to  boast 
of  when  compared  with  six  other  western  states  as  to  in- 
crease in  the  amount  of  money  she  is  devoting  to  public 
schools.  In  1920,  Montana  had  increased  her  expenditure  for 
public  schools  363  percent  over  that  of  1910 ;  Utah,  269  per- 
cent; South  Dakota,  203  percent;  California,  201  percent; 
Iowa,  192  percent ;  North  Dakota,  183  percent ;  and  Minne- 
sota 179  percent. 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA 


FIGURE  2 

MOW    MINNE5GTA5    PcRCCNT    OF    INCREASE     IN     TOTAL     SCHOOL    CXPCNDITURC3 

COMPARES  WITH  THAT  or  CERTAIN  OTHER  STATES 
1910-1920 


400 


Montana       Utah 


5outh     Californb       Iowa 
Dakota 


North      Minnesota 
Dakota 


ABILITY  VERSUS  EFFORT  TO  PROVIDE  SCHOOLS 

The  ability  of  a  state,  a  county,  or  a  district  to  provide 
schools  does  not  depend  chiefly  upon  its  total  assessed  valua- 
tion. If  two  districts  each  have  a  valuation  of  $20,000,  and  one 
of  these  districts  has  to  educate  50  children,  and  the  other,  150 
children,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  it  would  be  very  unfair  to  con- 
sider them  equally  able  to  provide  schools  of  the  same  stand- 
ard. One  of  these  districts  ought  to  provide  at  least  two 
teachers,  the  other,  at  least  six,  allowing  twenty-five  pupils 
per  teacher.  For  this  reason,  it  is  customary  to  take  its'  wealth 
per  child  as  the  measure  of  the  ability  of  a  state,  a  county,  or 


io       FLETCHER  II.  SIVIFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLAINE 

a  school  district  to  provide  schools.  We  may  regard  the 
wealth  of  the  state,  county,  or  district  as  a  bank  account  upon 
which  it  may  draw  for  the  support  of  public  schools,  and  the 
wealth  per  child  as  the  bank  account  upon  which  it  may  draw 
for  the  education  of  each  child. 

In  the  same  \vay,  if  we  wish  to  compare  communities  as 
to  their  effort  to  provide  schools,  w^e  may  take  expenditure  per 
school  child.  Other  measures  of  effort  are  the  rate  of  school 
tax  and  the  amount  of  money  expended  for  schools  on  each 
$1.000  of  estimated  wealth.  Table  3  shows  where  Minnesota 
stands  when  compared  with  Iowa,  North  Dakota,  Nebraska, 
South  Dakota,  and  Wisconsin,  as  to  ability  to  provide  schools 
as  measured  by  wealth  per  school  child  ;  as  to  effort  measured 
by  expenditure ;  and  as  to  results  measured  by  the  percent  of 
the  school  population  actually  enrolled  in  school,  the  percent 
of  enrollment  in  daily  attendance,  and  the  average  length  of 
school  year. 

TABLE  3 

MINNESOTA  COMPARED  WITH  FIVE  NEIGHBOR- 
ING STATES  AS  TO  ABILITY,  EFFORT. 
AND  RESULTS,  1919-20 


Rank  in  Group  of  Six  States 


Ability 

Effort 

Results 

Wealth 
per 
Child 
Enrolled 

Expended        Per 
on  Public     Capita 
Schools     Expendi- 
for  Each     ture  for 
$1.000  of         Each 
Estimated       Child 
Wealth  1920  Enrolled 

Percent  of 
Population 
5-  1  8  Years 
Enrolled 
in  Schools 

Average 
Length 
Percent  of       of 
Enrollment  School 
in  Daily     Year  in 
Attendance      Days 

I  o  w  a 

.        1 

6                  3 

2 

3             2 

North  Dakota 

..     2 

5            2 

3 

4            3 

Nebraska 

3 

4            5 

1 

5            5 

Minnesota 

.  .     4 

2            4 

5 

2            6 

South   Dakota 

..     5 

1             1 

4 

6            4 

Wisconsin  .  .  .  . 

.     6 

3            6 

6 

1             1 

PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IX  MINNESOTA 


ii 


From  Table  3  we  see  that  whereas  Minnesota  ranks  fourth 
in  a  group  of  six  middle  west  states  in  ability  to  provide 
schools  and  second  as  to  the  amount  she  spends  on  schools 
for  each  $1,000  of  estimated  wealth,  she  ranks  fifth  as  to  the 
percent  of  her  children  enrolled  and  sixth  as  to  length  of 
school  year. 

It  is  evident  that  in  proportion  to  her  ability  and  in  propor- 
tion to  the  effort  she  is  making,  Minnesota  is  getting  far  poorer 
results  than  most  of  the  other  states  in  this  middle  west  group. 
Let  us  now  ask  the  same  question,  regarding  Minnesota  when 
compared  with  the  United  States  as  a  whole.  Table  4  gives 
the  answer. 

TABLE  4 

WHERE   MINNESOTA  STANDS  AS  TO  ABILITY, 
EFFORT,  AND  RESULTS  (1920) 


Abilitv  and  Effort 


Rank  in 

United 

States 


Results 


Rank  in 

United 

States 


Wealth  (true  estimat- 
ed 1920)  per  Child 
Enrolled  11 

Expenditure  for  Edu- 
cation for  Each 
$1,000  of  the  Esti- 
mated Wealth,  1920  16 

Total  Expenditure  for 

Public  Schools 11 

Amount  Expended  per 

Child  Enrolled    ....          11 

Per  Capita  Value  of 
School  Property  per 
Child  Enrolled'  .  13 


Percent  of  Population 
5-18  Enrolled  in 
Public  Schools  ....  24 

Percent  of  Enrollment 
in  Average  Daily 
Attendance  19 

Average  Length  of 
School  Term  in 
Davs  .  33 


12       FLETCHER  H.  SWIFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLA1NE 

Looking  at  Table  4,  we  see  that  Minnesota  ranks  eleventh 
in  the  United  States  with  respect  to  three  things :  wealth  per 
child  enrolled,  total  expenditure  for  public  schools,  and  ex- 
penditure per  child ;  thirteenth  as  to  value  of  school  property 
per  child;  and  sixteenth  as  to  expenditure  for  each  $1,000  of 
true  estimated  wealth.  These  are  measures  of  ability  and  ef- 
fort. How  unsatisfactory  are  the  results  which  Minnesota  se- 
cures is  shown  by  the  facts  listed  under  results ;  for,  although 
Minnesota  ranks  eleventh  as  to  the  amount  of  money  she 
spends  for  each  child  enrolled  and  sixteenth  as  to  expenditure 
for  each  $1,000  of  her  wealth,  she  ranks  only  twenty-fourth  as 
to  percent  of  children  enrolled,  nineteenth  as  to  average  daily 
attendance,  and  thirty-third  as  to  length  of  school  year. 

FIGURE  3 


Mow  MINNESOTA  DIVIDED  HER  SCHOOL  REVENUES 


24%  or  MINNESOTA'S  SCHOOL  MONEY 

OOE15    TO    9%    or    HEIR  CHILDREN 

These  children  oil  live  in  one    county, 
5r.  Louis 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA  13 

How  do  we  account  for  this  situation  ?  What  is  the  ex- 
planation of  the  fact  that  Minnesota  ranks  relatively  so  high 
as  to  expenditure  and  so  low  as  to  results?  Does  it  mean 
that  Minnesota  is  getting  a  smaller  return  for  what  she  spends 
on  public  schools  than  the  United  States  as  a  whole  and  the 
individual  states  with  which  \ve  have  compared  her?  This 
may  be  in  part  true,  but  the  real  explanation  is  that  Minnesota 
is  spending  24  percent  of  her  public  school  moneys  on  9  per 
cent  of  her  children.  These  children  all  live  in  one  county,  St. 
Louis.  The  story  of  how  Minnesota  divided  her  school  reve- 
nue in  the  year  1920  is  pictured  in  Figure  3. 

Throughout  large  regions  of  our  state,  school  conditions 
are  exceedingly  bad.  Expenditures  are  low  and  the  facilities 
provided,  desperately  poor,  but  the  amount  of  money  expended 
in  St.  Louis  County  for  high  salaries  and  elaborate  buildings 
raises  the  average  for  the  entire  state.  If  five  men  are  hungry, 
and  you  provide  one  with  a  banquet  and  the  other  four  with 
crusts,  and  then  average  the  amount  of  money  spent  for  food, 
the  average  will  look  exceedingly  satisfactory  on  paper.  But 
if  you  leave  your  account  sheet  behind  you  and  go  outside  of 
the  banquet  hall  .to  the  four  men  sitting  on  cold  stones  and 
munching  crusts,  you  will  form  a  true  conception  of  what  you 
are  doing — feeding  one  and  starving  four. 

This  is  exactly  what  Minnesota  is  doing.  She  is  providing 
luxurious  palaces  for  a  few  hundred  of  her  children  and 
sending  thousands  of  others  to  school  in  buildings  which; 
when  compared  with  these  palaces,  are,, in  many  cases,  little 
better  than  hovels.  These  facts  must  be  borne  in  mind  when 
we  see  Minnesota  assigned  a  relatively  high  rank  on  the 
basis  of  state  averages.  We  must  bear  in  mind  that  behind 
these  misleading  averages  and  ranks  is  the  story  of  the  one 
banquet  and  the  four  crusts.  This  story  is  told  emphatically 
in  Table  5,  which  shows  how  school  conditions  of  the  state 
as  a  whole  compare  with  those  of  St.  Louis  County. 


14       FLETCHER  II.  Sll'lI:T  JA7J>  FRAXCES  K.  DEL  PLAIN E 

TABLE   5 
HOW  SCHOOL  CONDITIONS  OF  THE  STATE  OF 

MINNESOTA  AS  A  WHOLE  COMPARE  WITH 
THOSE  OF  ST.  LOUIS  COUNTY,  1920 

State  St.  Louis 

as  a  Whole         County 

Enrollment— Total    503,597  47,157 

Percent  of  Total .  .  100  9 


Total    Expenditures    (Exclusive    of 

Bonds  and  Interest)    : $35,584,687      $8,544,491 


Percent  of  Minnesota's  Total  School 

Expenditures    100 

Total  Annual  Expenditure  per  Child 

Enrolled    $71  $181.19 

Average  Number  of  Days  Each  Pu- 
pil Attended— Rural    96  136 

High  School 131  150 

Average  Annual  Salary  of  Teachers  $882  $1,415 

Average  Monthly  Wage  of  Women 

Teachers— Rural     $74  $85 

High  School $95  $119 

Percent  of  Teachers,   Graduates   of 

Normal   Schools  or  Colleges 46  71 

Percent     of     Teachers     Not     High 

School  Graduates   .  14  9 


Table  5  shows  us  that  in  1920,  whereas  the  average  salary 
of  teachers  throughout  the  state  was  $882,  the  average  in  St. 
Louis  County  was  $1,400.  The  state  as  a  whole  spends  $71  for 
each  child  enrolled.  St.  Louis  County  spends  $181.  Only 
forty-six  out  of  every  one  hundred  teachers,  taking  the  state 
as  a  whole,  are  graduates  of  a  normal  school  or  a  college.  In 
St.  Louis  County,  seventy-one  teachers  out  of  every  one  hun- 
dred are  graduates  of  a  college  or  a  normal  school. 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA  15 

We  have  seen  that  Minnesota  has  little  reason  to  be  proud 
of  what  she  is  doing  for  her  public  schools  and  very  little  of 
which  to  boast.  We  have  learned  something  of  how  the  state 
as  a  whole  compares  with  St.  Louis  County.  Let  us  now  try 
to  get  a  few  more  of  the  facts. 

DEPLORABLE  SCHOOL  CONDITIONS  IN 
MINNESOTA 

It  is  bad  enough  to  discover  that  Minnesota  ranks  twenty- 
fourth  in  the  United  States  as  to  the  number  of  children  out  of 
every  one  hundred  of  school  age  whom  she  succeeds  in  enroll- 
ing in  school,  and  thirty-third  as  to  the  length  of  her  school 
term.  The  situation  appears  even  worse  when  we  recall  that 
from  1890  to  1920,  her  national  rank  went  steadily  down.  But 
generalizations,  however  important,  are,  after  all,  not  so  con- 
vincing as  the  concrete  facts  and  definite  situations  lying  back 
of  these  generalizations. 

In  1920,  the  State  Board  of  Education  published  these  facts 
in  its  report  upon  the  revision  of  state  aid : 

Approximately  2,000  children  in  Minnesota  are  denied  all  educa- 
tional opportunity.  This  condition  exists  not  only  in  the  northern  part 
of  the  state,  but  also  in  the  wealthiest  counties  in  Minnesota,  even  in 
districts  where  the  school  tax  is  less  than  five  mills. 

Practically  half  the  school  children  in  Minnesota  live  in 
the  country,  consequently  the  facilities  provided  in  rural 
schools  give  us  an  accurate  idea  of  how  well  Minnesota  is  pro- 
viding for  fifty  percent  of  her  children.  Twenty-one  out  of 
every  one  hundred  teachers  in  rural  and  semi-graded  schools 
are  not  even  high-school  graduates.  In  the  report  referred  to 
above,  the  State  Department  gave  an  account  of  conditions 
brought  to  light  by  a  survey  of  rural  schools  in  six  counties. 
This  survey  showed  that  90  percent  of  the  rural  schools  in 
these  six  counties  had  no  play  apparatus ;  79  percent  carried 
drinking  water  some  distance ;  60  percent  did  not  have  proper 
desks  for  all  of  the  children;  37  percent  had  very  poor  light; 
and  51  percent  were  not  even  clean.  Out  of  every  twenty 
rural  children,  less  than  ten  are  in  school  on  an  average  school 
day.  Of  these,  nine  are  in  a  school  without  playground  appa- 
ratus ;  six  are  in  a  schopl  without  proper  desks  for  the  pupils ; 


16       FLETCHER  H.  SWIFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLAINE 

three  do  not  have  proper  light  to  study  by  ;  and  five  are  in 
dirty  schoolhouses. 

CONDITIONS  IN  NINE  REPRESENTATIVE 
COUNTIES 

In  order  to  gain  an  accurate  idea  of  actual  conditions,  an 
intensive  study  was  made  of  nine  representative  counties. 
These  counties  were  selected  on  the  basis  of  their  ability  to 
provide  school  revenues,  that  is,  on  the  basis  of  their  wealth 
per  school  child  in  average  daily  attendance.  The  counties 
selected  include  the  two  richest,  as  measured  by  wealth  per 
child ;  the  two  poorest ;  the  two  of  approximately  middle  rank ; 
and  those  ranking  8,  22,  and  66.  Table  6  shows  the  counties 
selected,  the  wealth  of  each  per  child,  and  its  rank  among 
Minnesota's  86  counties  on  the  basis  selected. 

TABLE  6 

NINE    REPRESENTATIVE    MINNESOTA    COUNTIES 
(Selection  based  on  ability  to  provide  school  revenues) 

Wealth  per  Child  or 
Ability  To  Provide  Schools 


Rank  among 
State's  86 


County 

Amount 

Counties 

St.   Louis    

$14,915.88 

1 

Murray        

....                   9  162  32 

2 

Sibley 

7  361  88 

8 

Nicollet 

.    .                      629412 

22 

Chippewa              .    . 

507258 

43 

Swift 

4  980  95 

44 

Sherburne 

3  570  40 

66 

Mille  Lacs    

2,351.99 

85 

Hubbard   . 

2,338.27 

86 

PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA  17 

Table  6  shows  us  the  wide  variations  in  the  wealth  lying 
within  the  different  counties  of  Minnesota.  It  would  be  rea- 
sonable to  expect  that  the  expenditure  for  public  schools  in 
the  various  counties  would  be  directly  proportional  to  their 
wealth.  How  far  this  is  from  being  the  case  is  discovered  as 
soon  as  we  inquire  what  these  counties  are  actually  expend- 
ing. In  the  year  1920-21,  Sibley  County,  the  county  which 
ranks  eighth  richest  in  the  state,  measured  on  the  basis  of  its 
wealth  per  child,  spent  only  $79  per  school  child ;  Sherburne, 
which  ranks  sixty-sixth,  spent  $139;  Mille  Lacs,  which  ranks 
eighty-fifth,  spent  $103 ;  Chippewa,  which  ranks  forty-third, 
spent  $78;  and  Hubbard,  the  poorest  of  all,  spent  $124.  Evi- 
dently there  is  something  wrong  with  the  Minnesota  system 
of  financing  her  public  schools  when  we  find  such  wide  varia- 
tions in  the  amount  spent  per  child  and  particularly  when  we 
discover  that  the  richer  counties  are,  in  many  cases,  spending 
less  money  than  the  poorer  counties. 

Figure  4  shows  how  eight  Minnesota  counties  compared  in 
the  year  1921  with  respect  to  their  wealth  per  child  in  average 
daily  attendance  and  their  total  expenditure  per  child. 

FIGURE  4 

WEALTH  AND  EXPENDITURE  PER  CHILD 
IN  DGHT  MINNESOTA  COUNTIES 


Murray         Stbley         Nicdlef       Chippewa        5wift        _5herburne    Mil  \e  Lacs      Hubbard 
Wealth  per  Child  Total  Expenditure  per  Child 


18       FLETCHER  H.  SWIFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLAINE 

It  shows  -is  that  there  is  no  reason  at  the  present  time  for 
believing-  that  because  a  county  in  Minnesota  is  rich,  it  will 
provide  generously  for  schools.  Hubbard,  the  least  able  of 
the  eight  counties  shown  in  Figure  4,  spends  more  money  per 
child  than  any  other  county  in  the  group,  except  Sherburne 
and  Nicollet.  Sibley,  the  second  most  able,  spends  less  money 
per  child  than  any  other  county  except  Chippewa,  and  ex- 
ceeds Chippewa  by  only  one  dollar. 

FIGURE  5 


ABILITY  AND  EFFORT  TO  SUPPORT  SCHOOLS 
IN  NINE:  MINNESOTA  COUNTIES 


*16,000r 


Sr.Louis    Murray      Sibley      Nicollcf     Chippewa     5wifr     ^herburne  MllleLac5  Hubbard 


per  Child     Average  Dbfrict  Tax  Rate 
in  Average  Daily  Attendance 

Figure  5  gives  us  an  opportunity  to  see  how  ability  to  sup- 
port good  schools  as  measured  by  the  wealth  back  of  each 
child  compares  with  the  effort  which  is  being  made  in  nine 
counties.  Beginning  with  the  third  county,  the  story  is 
plainly  told.  The  greater  the  wealth,  the  less  the  effort.  Be- 
ginning with  Sibley  County,  which  ranks  eighth  in  the  state 
from  the  standpoint  of  its  wealth  per  child,  and  ending  with 
Hubbard  County,  the  poorest  of  all,  we  find  a  steady  increase 


PUBLIC  SCPIOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA  19 

from  6  milts,  which  is  the  average  school  tax  levied  by  the 
districts  of  Sibley  County,  to  26^4  mills,  which  is  the  average 
district  school  tax  in  Hubbard  County. 

The  complete  story  of  Minnesota's  school  burden  is  told 
in  seven  chapters  in  Figure  6. 

FIGURE  6 

THE  STORY  or  MINNESOTA'S  SCHOOL  BURDENS 

TOLD  IN  SEVEN  CHAPTERS 
-As  WEALTH  DECREASES  SCHOOL  TAXES  INCREASE— 


39.2.1  mills 


TgB7,«5      10,M,       ^         ^  j 

*9,e50     *T,T50       *6.£50  *4J50  *3,£50  *££50 

ICounly'  Dr.  Louis)  4  Counties  4  Counties    27  Counties     £5  Counties          21  Counties  ,  6  Counties 


Avenge  levy  Typical  valuation 

in  mills  per  child 

Figure  6  shows  the  counties  of  Minnesota  arranged  in 
seven  groups.  The  small  white  square  shows  the  average  val- 
uation per  child  of  the  counties  included  in  each  group.  Rest- 
ing on  each  of  these  is  a  figure  representing  the  average  school 
tax  for  maintenance  levied  by  the  districts  of  the  counties  in- 
cluded in  the  group.  The  average  maintenance  tax  levied  by 
the  districts  included  in  St.  Louis  County  is  over  39  mills. 
This  is  the  highest  average  district  tax  rate  levied  in  any  coun- 
ty or  group  of  counties  in  the  state. 

Turning  to  the  second  chapter  of  our  story,  we  find  that 
we  have  four  counties  with  an  average  valuation  per  child  of 
over  $9,000.  The  districts  in  these  counties  levy  an  average 
maintenance  tax  of  7.6  mills.  From  this  point  on,  the  story 
is  the  same.  The  lower  the  valuation,  i.e.,  the  less  the  ability, 
the  heavier  is  the  burden  which  must  be  borne  under  Minne- 
sota's present  system  of  school  finance. 


20       FLETCHER  H.  SWIFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  ELAINE 

Figure  7  shows  the  percent  of  districts  in  the  nine  counties 
presented  in  Figure  6  which  levy  five  mills  or  less,  the  percent 
levying  between  five  mills  and  twenty  mills,  and  the  percent 
levying  over  twenty  mills.  Leaving  St.  Louis  County  out  of 
our  discussion,  we  discover  that  in  Murray  County,  the  second 
richest  county  in  the  state  from  the  standpoint  of  the  amount 
of  wealth  back  of  each  child,  only  three  districts  out  of  one 
hundred  levy  over  twenty  mills ;  in  Sibley  County,  six ;  in 
Sherburne  County,  ten ;  in  Mille  Lacs  County,  thirty-three ; 
and  in  Hubbard  County,  forty-seven. 

.       FIGURE  7 

RATE:  or  DISTRICT  SCHOOL  TAX 
LEVIED  IN  NINE:  MINNESOTA  COUNTIES 


County 


10     20     30    40     50     60     70     30     90 


Percent  of  districts  in  county  kvyirx? — 


OvertOnoiHs  5*fl3mUb  Jraflbcrteu 


10      ZO     30    40     50     60     70     60     90    100% 


The  district  tax"  situation  in  each  county  is  shown  in  a 
rough  way  by  the  two  maps  in  Figure  8.  The  map  at  the  left 
shows  for  each  county  the  percent  of  districts  that  levied  five 
mills  or  less  than  five  mills  for  maintenance  in  the  year  1921. 
The  white  counties  are  those  in  which  twenty-five  or  less  than 
twenty-five  percent  of  the  districts  levied  five  mills  or  less. 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA 


21 


The  lightly  shaded  counties  are  those  in  which  from  twenty- 
five  to  fifty  percent  of  the  districts  levied  a  maintenance  tax  of 
five  mills  or  less.  The  heavily  shaded  counties  are  those  in 
which  from  fiftv  to  one  hundred  percent  of  the  districts  levied 
five  mills  or  less. 

FIGURE   8 


PERCENT  or  5cHOOL  DISTRICTS  IN  MINNESOTA  COUNTIES 
LEVYING  HVE  MILLS  OR  LE%  FOR  MAINTENANCE 
I9ZH9K 


PERCENT  or  5oiooL  DISTRICTS  IN  Mi 


COUNTIES 


RCENT  OF  JCMOOL  flSTRICTS  IN  MINNESOTA  LOUNTH 
LEVYING  TWENTY  MILLS  OR  MORE  FOR  MAINTENAHCE 


0-D% 


50-100% 


In  the  same  way  the  map  at  the  right  shows  the  counties  in 
which  from  fifty  to  one  hundred  percent  of  the  districts  levied 
a  tax  of  more  than  twenty  mills.  These,  as  will  be  seen,  are 
the  heavily  shaded  counties.  The  lightly  shaded  counties  are 
those  in  which  from  twenty-five  to  fifty  percent  levied  more 
than  twenty  mills.  The  white  counties  are  those  in  which 
twenty-five  or  less  than  twenty-five  percent  of  the  districts 
levied  a  tax  of  twenty  mills. 

Figures  7  and  8  show  that  a  larger  percent  of  the  districts 
in  St.  Louis  County  levy  a  maintenance  tax  of  twenty  mills  or 
more  than  in  any  other  of  the  nine  counties  chosen.  It  must 
be  remembered  that  a  considerable  proportion  of  the  property 
in  St.  Louis  County  is  owned  by  mining  companies  and  that 


22       FLETCHER  H.  SWIFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLA1NE 

levying  heavy  taxes  upon  such  property  represents  no  sacrifice 
on  the  part  of  the  voters  at  the  school  meeting.  Leaving  St. 
Louis  County  out  of  our  discussion,  we  discover  that  whereas 
in  Murray  County,  which  stands  second  in  the  state  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  amount  of  wealth  back  of  each  school  child, 
only  three  districts  out  of  one  hundred  levy  twenty  mills  or 
more;  in  Sibley,  the  eighth  richest  county,  6;  in  Sherburne,  10; 
in  Mille  Lacs,  33 ;  and  in  Hubbard,  the  poorest  county  in  the 
state,  47  districts  out  of  each  one  hundred  levy  over  twenty 
mills. 

CONDITIONS  IN  SCHOOL  DISTRICTS 

We  have  seen  how  enormous  are  the  inequalities  among 
the  counties  of  Minnesota  as  to  wealth,  expenditure,  and  taxa- 
tion for  public  schools.  The  situation  is  even  worse  when  we 
turn  to  the  districts  within  the  counties.  This  will  be  discov- 
ered by  comparing  the  richest  with  the  poorest  school  district 
in  the  counties  which  we  have  already  compared  with  each 
other.  The  reports  of  the  State  Department  of  Education 
group  Minnesota  school  districts  into  two  general  classes:  (1) 
common  school  or  rural  school  districts ;  (2)  high  and  graded 
school  districts. 

Figure  9  shows  how  the  richest  and  poorest  rural  school 
districts  in  eight  Minnesota  counties  compared  in  the  year 
1921-22  as  to  ability  to  support  schools,  i.e.,  wealth  per  child, 
and  as  to  the  effort  they  made  to  provide  schools  as  measured 
by  the  district  school  tax. 

Figure  9  shows  us  that  whereas  the  richest  rural  district  in 
Nicollet  County  has  nearly  $46,000  back  of  each  school  child, 
the  poorest  district  has  less  than  $2,500.  The  richest  district 
in  this  county  in  1921  levied  a  tax  of  a  mill  and  one  half;  the 
poorest  district  levied  fifteen  mills.  The  richest  district  in 
Nicollet  County  is  more  than  five  times  as  rich  as  the  richest 
district  in  Mille  Lacs  County,  and  nearly  forty-five  times  as 
rich  as  the  poorest  rural  district  in  Mille  Lacs.  Yet  this  poor- 
est Mille  Lacs  district  levies  a  tax  more  than  fourteen  times 
as  heavy  as  the  richest  Nicollet  district. 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA 
FIGURE  9 

WEALTH  PER  CHILD  AND  .SCHOOL  LEVY 

IN  RICHEST  AND  POOREST   RURAL  SCHOOL  DISTRICTS 

IN  EIGHT  MINNESOTA  COUNTIES 

192M922. 


50,000 

•*4Z.S4O 

4QOOO 

*3       ft 

40milb 

•Ji 

ror 

30,000 

1  1 

*? 

50 

30 

a.9 

L 

™ 

eaooo 

CO 

laooo 

n 

J 

,*53I9  s 

I 

L 

I  ¥    -, 

1  fin 

i  M 

I 

10 
0 

1          11  1          11  1          11  I          II  J  II  J          II  »          in  .     -          " 

Nicolld        Murray        5t.Loui5     Chippewa       5wift         5terburne     Mubbard    Mil  le  Loo 
I.  Richer          11,  Poorest 


It  is  unnecessary  to  prolong  our  discussion  of  Figure  9. 
The  facts  are  too  evident  and  too  clearly  presented  to  need  en- 
larging upon.  Attention  should  be  called,  however,  to  at  least 
one  more  situation.  St.  Louis  County  is  commonly  thought  of 
as  being  rich  throughout.  How  far  this  is  from  the  truth  is 
seen  from  the  fact  that  the  poorest  rural  district  in  this  county 
has  a  valuation  per  child  of  approximately  $1,100.  Yet  this 
district  levies  a  tax  of  thirty  mills,  whereas  the  richest  rural 
district  in  this  county  with  a  valuation  of  over  $38,000  per  child 
levies  less  than  twenty-seven  mills.  That  there  is  little  reason 
to  believe  the  situation  any  better  in  high  and  graded  school 
districts  is  shown  by  the  story  told  in  Figure  10. 


24      FLETCHER  H.  SWIFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLAINE 

FIGURE  10 

WEALTH  PER  CHILD  AND  SCHOOL  Lew 

IN  RICHEST  AND  POOREST  HIGH  AND  GRADEX>  SCHOOL.  DISTRICTS 
IN  SEVEN  MINNESOTA  COUNTIES 


*TOOO 

L7WI 

TO 

wo 

_. 

60 

5i 

5,000 

n 

^ 

50 

i 

i 

4,000 

•J91Z 

37 

40 

£. 

*w« 

Jjm 

3,000 

1 

• 

30 

•i- 

"£400 

£.000 

r 

:. 

eo 

- 

, 

•  |a         | 

*I570 

1,000 
n 

I 

\\ 

111 

mm 
II 

10 
0 

flOmilb 


Murray        Nicolkr       Swift        MilleLac?   Chippewa     3herburn<?    Hubband 
I,  Richest         II,  Poorest 

In  Figure  10,  we  have  presented  the  wealth  per  child  and 
the  maintenance  tax  rate  in  the  richest  and  poorest  high  and 
graded  school  districts  in  seven  Minnesota  counties.  The  poor- 
est of  these  districts  is  District  13  in  Mille  Lacs  County,  which 
has  a  valuation  of  less  than  $1,000  ($949)  per  school  child.  Yet 
this  district  levies  a  school  tax  of  sixty-two  mills,  whereas  the 
very  richest  district  in  the  group,  District  7  in  Murray  Coun- 
ty, with  a  valuation  of  nearly  $7,000  per  child,  levies  only  a  lit- 
tle over  fourteen  mills.  In  other  words,  District  13  in  Mille 
Lacs  County  is  only  one-seventh  as  able  to  provide  school 
revenues  as  District  7  in  Murray  County,  yet  levies  more  than 
four  times  as  heavy  a  tax.  The  story  is  equally  astonishing 
when  we  compare  the  richest  and  poorest  district  in  each  of 
the  counties  represented.  In  every  case,  it  is  the  poorest  dis- 
trict in  the  county  which  levies  the  heavy  tax,  and  the  richest 
district  which  levies  the  light  tax. 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA  25 

CAUSES   OF   MINNESOTA'S   DEPLORABLE 
EDUCATIONAL  CONDITIONS 

Space  does  not  permit  us  to  continue  further  the  account 
of  county  and  district  inequalities  in  ability  and  effort  to 
provide  schools.  We  have  seen  that  our  fair  state  can  not 
stand  comparison  with  many  other  states  which  every  loyal 
citizen  of  Minnesota  would  claim  she  ought  to  outclass.  We 
have  seen  that,  compared  with  the  United  States  as  a  whole, 
Minnesota  ranks  low  as  to  length  of  school  year  and  as  to 
enrollment.  More  than  this,  we  have  seen  that  for  the  last 
thirty  years,  Minnesota's  educational  rank  in  these  respects 
has  steadily  declined. 

Let  us  now  ask,  What  are  the  chief  causes  of  Minnesota's 
deplorable  educational  situation?  We  answer  without  a  mo- 
ment's hesitation : 

THE  DISTRICT  SYSTEM 

MINNESOTA'S  UNSCIENTIFIC  METHOD  OF  APPOR- 
TIONING THE  CURRENT  SCHOOL  FUND 

AN  INDEFENSIBLE  SYSTEM  OF  STATE  AID  WHICH 
IGNORES  BOTH  ABILITY  AND  EFFORT 

REFUSAL    OF    THE    LEGISLATURE    TO    AVAIL    IT- 
SELF OF  EXPERT  KNOWLEDGE 

WHAT  OPPORTUNITIES  HAS  MINNESOTA  HAD  OF 
GETTING  SCIENTIFIC  ADVICE  AS  A  BASIS  FOR 
REFORMING  HER  SYSTEM  OF  SCHOOL  FINANCE? 

1914— REPORT  OF  LEGISLATIVE  PUBLIC  EDUCA- 
TION COMMISSION 

1918— KENT,  "A  STUDY  OF  STATE  AID  TO  PUBLIC 
SCHOOLS  IN  MINNESOTA" 

1920— KELLEY,  "PUBLIC  SCHOOL  SUPPORT  IN 
MINNESOTA" 

1920— STATE  BOARD  OF  EDUCATION,  "REPORT 
UPON  REVISION  OF  STATE  AID" 

WHAT  HAS  T,HE  LEGISLATURE  DONE  WITH 
THESE  RECOMMENDATIONS? 


26       FLETCHER  H.  SWIFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLAINE 

THE  DISTRICT  SYSTEM 

Of  the  chief  causes  of  Minnesota's  deplorable  educational 
situation  named  above,  the  district  system  is  the  first.  The 
district  system  is  not  only  the  .most  important  of  all  these 
causes,  but  it  is  the  fundamental  defect  in  Minnesota's  system 
and  underlies  all  others. 

That  Minnesota's  system  of  school  support  is  essentially  a 
district  system,  is  shown  by  Figure  11  which  shows  that  in 
1921,  the  district  furnished  $87  out  of  every  $100  provided  for 
public  schools. 

FIGURE  11 

WHERE:  EACH  ^100  TOR  MINNESOTA'S 
PUBLIC  SCHOOLS  CAME   FROM  IN 


federal  Gowrnnxznf 
104 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA  27 

There  are  in  Minnesota  at  the  present  time  nearly  8,000 
school   districts    (7,980).     It  would   be   almost   impossible  to 
think  of  a  more  cumbersome  system  or  of  one  which  by  its 
very   nature   breeds    and    perpetuates   greater   inequalities   of 
every   sort.      Not   only  do  these  8,000  districts   vary   greatly 
in  size  and  in  wealth  but  they  vary  greatly  also  in  their  zeal 
for  education  and  their  desire  to  support  schools.     The  only 
school  tax  which  every  Minnesota  school  district  is  compelled 
to   levy   is  the  so-called  ''county  one-mill  tax,"  which  is,  in 
reality,  not  a  county  tax  at  all,  but  a  compulsory  district  tax. 
This  tax  is  totally  inadequate  to  maintain  an  effective  school. 
Aside  from  this  tax,  any  district  which  chooses  may  refuse 
to  levy  any  school  tax  whatsoever.     Under  Minnesota's  pres- 
ent district  system  of  support,  communities  which  so  desire 
and  so  vote  may  contribute  almost  nothing  to  the  support  of 
public    schools    in    Minnesota.      This    is   the    actual    situation 
which  is  found  every  year  in  certain  wealthy  districts.     On 
the  other  hand,  poor  districts  which  desire  to  provide  good 
schools   have    so   little   wealth   to   draw   upon    that   they   are 
obliged    to   exert   themselves   out   of   all    proportion    to   their 
ability. 

THE  INJUSTICE  OF  THE  DISTRICT  SYSTEM 

1919-20 

•RURAL  DISTRICTS  IN   MINNESOTA  PAID  SCHOOL 

TAXES  RANGING  FROM  LESS  THAN 

1   MILL  TO  117  MILLS 

1921-22 
14  DISTRICTS  LEVIED   MORE  THAN  75  MILLS 

52    DISTRICTS    LEVIED    NO    MAINTENANCE    TAX 

MOST    OF    THEM    PROVIDED    NEITHER 

SCHOOLS  NOR  TRANSPORTATION 

A    15-MILL    TAX    ON    THEIR    TOTAL    VALUATION 

($4,778,000)    WOULD   HAVE    PRODUCED 

$71,670  OR  $1,378  PER  DISTRICT 


28       FLETCHER  II.  SlI'IFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLAIN E 

It  will  be  helpful  to  consider  one  or  two  concrete  examples. 
In  the  year  1921-22,  District  111,  Blue  Earth  County,  with  a 
valuation  of  $129,312  levied  no  local  school  tax  and  main- 
tained no  school  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  there  were  twenty- 
seven  pupils  living  in  the  district.  The  county  superintendent 
writes,  "No  definite  arrangement  for  transportation  in  Dis- 
trict 111.  Pupils  attended  near-by  schools  or  parochial 
schools."  In  Mower  County,  Districts  6,  17,  and  85  levied 
no  local  tax,  maintained  no  school,  and  furnished  no  trans- 
portation, although  they  had  respectively  twenty,  eight,  and 
five  pupils  residing  within  their  limits.  In  the  same  county, 
Districts  71  and  72  are  reported  to  open  their  schools  alter- 
nate years  to  avoid  being  consolidated  with  some  other  school 
district  and  hence  compelled  to  submit  to  a  local  tax  every 
year.  District  6  has  had  no  school  since  1915. 

Some  districts  which  levy  no  tax  are  districts  in  which 
no  children  of  school  age  reside.  But  this  situation  brings 
out  one  of  the  greatest  evils  of  the  district  system,  namely, 
that  it  permits  property  in  such  districts  which  ought  to  be 
available  as  a  source  of  school  revenue  to  escape  taxation. 
There  is  no  more  reason  why  the  property  within  a  school 
district  in  which  no  school  children  reside  should  escape  con- 
tributing its  just  quota  to  the  revenues  of  the  state  than  that 
the  property  of  a  childless  couple  who  live  within  a  school 
district  should  go  untaxed  for  school  purposes.  Education 
is  a  function  of  the  state.  The  powers  and  responsibilities 
possessed  by  school  districts  are,  strictly  speaking,  delegated 
to  them  by  the  sovereign  authority,  the  state.  The  wealth 
of  the  entire  state  belongs  to  the  state  and  should  be  utilized 
by  the  state  to  provide  adequate  school  facilities  for  her 
children. 

THE  DISTRICT  SYSTEM  IS  NOT  DEMOCRATIC 

Any  suggestion  to  abolish  the  district  system  arouses  an 
outcry  from  many  admirers  of  this  century-old  institution. 
Some  of  those  who  champion  it  most  stoutly  do  so  in  the 
name  of  democracy.  Others  cry  out  against  the  establish- 
ment of  the  county"  or  any  other  unit  larger  than  the  district 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA  29 

which  will  result  in  making  wealthy  communities  contribute 
to  the  education  of  children  in  poor  communities.  The  utter 
shallowness  of  such  arguments  is  clear  to  any  unbiased  cit- 
izen. As  to  preserving  the  district  because  of  its  so-called 
democracy,  we  may  state  that  the  chief  reason  for  demand- 
ing its  abolition  is  that  it  is  the  most  undemocratic  system 
that  could  be  devised.  The  essence  of  democracy  is  equality 
of  opportunity.  We  have  shown  that  the  district  system  not 
only  fails  to  provide  such  equality  but  will  always  make 
equality  impossible. 

A  much  stronger  argument  frequently  presented  for  the 
district  system  is  that  it  fosters  local  interests  in  public  edu- 
cation, and  that  without  such  interest  our  schools  would 
languish.  Were  the  districts  equally  able  to  support  schools 
and  equally  zealous  for  education,  such  an  argument  would 
be  valid,  but  the  conditions  existing  in  Minnesota  show  not 
only  that  school  districts  are  absolutely  unequal  in  matters 
of  zeal  and  ability,  but  that  they  can  never  approach  even 
the  slightest  degree  of  such  equality. 

Generations  of  district  support  and  district  control  find 
one  of  the  richest  commonwealths  in  the 'richest  nation  on 
the  earth  denying  multitudes  of  her  children  any  educational 
opportunity  whatever,  and  sending  hundreds  of  others  to 
schoo]  in  dismal  and  unsanitary  hovels  under  the  tutelage  of 
wretchedly  underpaid  and  proportionately  ignorant,  un- 
trained, and  incompetent  teachers.  Such  are  the  actual  re- 
sults of  the  time-honored,  undemocratic  district  system  in 
Minnesota. 

THE  DISTRICT  SYSTEM  MUST  GO 

Minnesota  may  temporize  with  the  present  situation. 
She  may  reduce  the  existing  evils,  but  she  can  not  cure  them 
unless,  or  until,  she  abolishes  the  district  system  with  its 
legion  of  accompanying  evils.  The  condition  of  Minnesota, 
as  far  as  public  education  is  concerned,  is  pathological.  It 
can  not  be  cured  without  a  major  operation.  The  major  op- 
eration it  requires  is  the  abolition  of  the  school  district  as  a 
unit  of  taxation,  organization,  and  administration.  This  fact 
may  as  well  be  faced  frankly.  There  is  no  reason  for  hiding 
the  truth  from  the  citizens. 


30       FLETCHER  H.  SWIFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLAINE 

The  evils  of  the  district  system  have  been  recognized  and 
pointed  out  by  every  leading  authority  on  the  organization 
and  support  of  public  schools  for  the  last  one  hundred  years. 
These  leaders  have  been  unanimous  in  their  condemnation 
of  the  district  system  and  their  support  of  the  county  system. 
One  Minnesota  state  superintendent  after  another  has  pleaded 
with  the  legislature  to  remove  this  curse  from  the  children 
of  the  state.  Forty-two  years  ago,  the  state  superintendent 
pointed  out  the  evils  of  the  district  system.  He  called  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  there  were  at  that  time  approximately 
4,000  school  districts  in  the  state.  In  his  annual  report  for 
1880,  he  wrote : 

Thus  with  4,000  different  bases  of  taxation,  ranging  in  valuation 
of  property  from  poverty  to  abundant  wealth,  we  have  schools  so  di- 
verse in  numbers  of  scholars,  length  of  terms  and  quality  of  teaching 
that  it  seems  ridiculous  to  call  them  a  system. 

In  1916,  State  Superintendent  Schulz  wrote : 

We  have  in  Minnesota  7,980  school  districts  varying  in  size  from 
two  sections  to  several  townships  and  with  valuations  ranging  from 

$20,000  to  several  million  dollars There  is  neither  hope  nor 

justice  in  such  a  system.  NO  SCHEME  OF  STATE  AID  WILL 
AMELIORATE  THIS  CONDITION.  The  only  just  system  is  the 
county  as  a  unit  for  school  support  as  well  as  for  administration  and 
supervision. 

To  these  statements  of  Minnesota's  great  educational 
leaders  have  been  added  the  findings  of  one  scientific  educa- 
tional committee  after  another.  Every  such  committee  has 
pointed  out  that  educational  progress  in  Minnesota  is  hin- 
dered at  every  turn  by  the  district  system.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances, the  citizens  of  Minnesota  may  well  ask  why  has 
the  district  system  continued,  why  does  it  exist  to-day?  The 
reason  is  evident.  It  is  because  the  legislature  has  turned  a 
deaf  ear  to  the  pleadings  of  state  superintendents  and  to  the 
findings  of  the  commissions  which  they  themselves  have  ap- 
pointed. 

Will  the  district  system  still  remain?  Yes.  Unless  the 
citizens  of  Minnesota  become  sufficiently  aroused  and  suffi- 
ciently intelligent  regarding  the  situation  to  unite  in  demand- 
ing its  abolition. 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA  31 

UNFAIR   METHOD   OF  DISTRIBUTING  STATE 
MONEYS 

From  Figure  11  .we  have  seen  that  in  1921  in  Minnesota, 
the  state  furnished  $12.90  out  of  each  $100  provided  for  pub- 
lic schools.  Properly  distributed,  this  amount,  small  as  it  is, 
could  be  made  to  play  an  important  part  in  equalizing  school 
burdens  and  educational  opportunities. 

WHAT  ARE  THE  MOST  IMPORTANT  AIMS  WHICH 

EVERY  SYSTEM  OF  STATE  AID  OUGHT 

TO  ACCOMPLISH? 

EQUALIZE  SCHOOL  BURDENS 
EQUALIZE  EDUCATIONAL  OPPORTUNITIES 

WHICH  OF  THESE  DOES   MINNESOTA'S  PRESENT 
SYSTEM  ACCOMPLISH? 

NEITHER 

Minnesota  places  the  money  provided  by  the  state  in  two 
funds.  The  first  of  these  funds,  popularly,  though  incor- 
rectly, known  as  the  current1  school  fund,  includes  unused 
balances  from  special  state  aid,  the  proceeds  of  the  state  one- 
mill  school  tax,  and  the  income  from  the  permanent  funds. 
This  fund  is  apportioned  among  districts  which  maintain  a 
school  year  of  at  least  six  months,  in  proportion  to  the  num- 
ber of  pupils  five  to  twenty-one  years  of  age  who  have  at- 
tended at  least  forty  days.  The  second  state  fund  is  that 
known  as  special  state  aid.  This  is  distributed  for  the  benefit 
of  specified  objects  including  all  types  of  public  schools,  many 
special  departments,  and  other  educational  projects  and  sit- 
uations. 

1  Laws    of    Minnesota,    1921,    specifically    provide    that  the    term    "current    school 

fund"   shall  be  used  to   designate  the  proceeds  of -the  state  one-mill  tax,   but   provided 

no    other    designation    for    the    total    amount    distributed    in  the    semi-annual    state    ap- 
portionment. 


32       FLETCHER  H.  SWIFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLAINE 

Minnesota's  basis  for  apportioning  the  current  school  fund 
(i.e.,  forty  days'  attendance  in  a  six  months'  school  year)  is 
entirely  indefensible.  The  present  requirements  were  en- 
acted by  the  legislature  as  an  interpretation  of  the  constitu- 
tional provision  directing  that  the  income  from  the  permanent 
school  fund  be  distributed  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  pupils 
between  the  ages  of  five  and  twenty-one  years.  If  the  legis- 
lature was  acting  within  its  rights  in  1887  when  it  interpreted 
the  terms  of  the  constitution  in  the  terms  of  then  existing 
averages,  it  would  be  equally  within  its  rights  now  to  inter- 
pret those  constitutional  terms  in  the  light  of  present  averages. 
The  requirements  now  in  force  are  far  belo\v  the  average 
maintained  by  the  state  for  many  years,  and  tend  neither  to 
raise  standards,  nor  to  equalize  school  burdens.  Since  the 
average  school  term  for  the  state  is  eight  months  and  the 
average  pupil  attends  school  136  days,  no  apportionment 
should  be  paid  to  districts  having  less  than  eight  months  of 
school,  nor  for  pupils  attending  less  than  140  days. 

Minnesota's  method  of  disbursing  her  current  school  fund 
ignores  the  comparative  wealth  of  school  districts,  the  effort 
they  make  to  provide  schools,  and  the  standards  they  main- 
tain. This  fund  does  not  serve  to  equalize  school  burdens 
because  it  is  distributed  to  such  districts  as  Hibbing  with  a 
valuation  of  $32,789  back  of  each  school  child,  on  the  same 
basis  as  it  is  distributed  to  Black  Duck  with  only  $765  be- 
hind every  child.  Minnesota's  method  ignores  the  difference 
in  efforts  made  by  districts,  for  it  apportions  the  current 
school  fund  on  the  same  basis  to  District  33,  Nicollet  County, 
which  levied  a  tax  of  1.5  mills  as  to  District  132,  Beltrami 
County,  which  levied  a  school  tax  of  113  mills  for  the 
same  year,  1921-22.  Minnesota's  method  also  ignores  the 
standards  maintained  by  districts.  A  district  which  provides 
one  poorly  trained  and  proportionately  cheap  teacher  is  aided 
from  the  current  school  fund  on  the  same  basis  as  a  district 
which  provides  a  well-trained  and  proportionately  better  paid 
teacher.  Minnesota's  method  also  ignores  the  all-important 
fact  that  the  greatest  burden  in  school  support  is  the  cost  of 
teachers'  salaries.  A  rural  district  which  provides  one  teacher 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA  33 

for  forty  pupils  receives  twice  as  much  aid  from  the  state  ap- 
portionment of  the  current  school  fund  as  a  rural  district  which 
provides  one  teacher  for  twenty  pupils,  but  the  cost  of  main- 
taining a  school  in  each  of  these  districts  will  be  very  nearly 
the  same,  provided  they  employ  equally  good  teachers  and 
furnish  equally  good  school  facilities.  The  district  with  ten 
pupils  should,  therefore,  receive  as  much  help  from  the  state, 
other  things  being  equal,  as  the  district  having  thirty  pupils. 

The  constitutional  provision  governing  the  distribution  of 
the  income  from  the  permanent  school  fund  was  not  designed 
to  affect  the  disbursement  of  the  proceeds  of  the  state  one- 
mill  tax,  nor  of  the  unused  balances  from  the  special  state  aid 
fund.  The  present  method  of  distributing  these  two  funds  in 
the  same  manner  as  that  employed  in  distributing  the  income 
of  the  permanent  school  fund  is  wholly  unnecessary.  An  ex- 
ceedingly beneficial  reform,  and  one  of  the  easiest  which  could 
be  introduced  into  Minnesota's  present  system  of  school  sup- 
port would  be  providing  for  the  distribution  of  these  two 
funds  in  a  scientific  manner. 

Special  state  aid  originated  in  Minnesota  in  1878  for  the 
purpose  of  helping  districts  to  support  high  schools,  then  new 
and  expensive  undertakings,  in  a  frontier  state.  At  the  present 
time,  it  is  distributed  to  benefit  twenty  different  types  of 
schools,  educational  projects,  and  educational  situations.  A 
school  or  district  may  qualify  for  aid  under  many  different 
provisions.  Every  type  of  public  school  in  the  state  may 
qualify  to  receive  more  or  less  aid  without  regard  to  its  need 
or  to  the  ability  of  its  district  to  provide  funds.  In  its  original 
form,  special  state  aid  was  designed  to  do  two  things:  (1) 
equalize  school  opportunities  by  throwing  open  state  aided 
high  schools  to,  all  pupils  in  the  state  without  charge  for  tui- 
tion, and  (2)  equalize  school  burdens  by  relieving  districts 
of  a  portion  of  the  expenses  of  furnishing  unusual  school  op- 
portunities. As  administered  at  the  present  time,  the  system 
does  neither.  It  has  grown  so  complicated  and  cumbersome 
that  it  has  practically  lost  sight  of  what  were  originally  and 
still  ought  to  be  its  fundamental  purposes.  In  most  cases,  it 
ignores  the  most  important  single  expenditure  for  schools, 
i.e.,  teachers'  wages,  and  the  greater  part  of  it  is  distributed 


34       FLETCHER  H.  SWIFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLAINE 

on  a  basis  which  ignores  both  the  ability  of  the  district  to 
finance  its  own  schools  and  its  effort  as  represented  by  the  rate 
of  local  tax  levied. 

Because  the  methods  of  distribution  of  both  the  state  ap- 
portionment and  the  special  state  aid  are  open  to  practically 
the  same  objections,  and  since  neither  contributes  in  any  rea- 
sonable degree  to  the  equalization  of  school  burdens  or  school 
opportunities,  this  report  will  follow  the  usual  custom,  group 
the  two,  and  present  the  facts  concerning  the  total  amount 
distributed  by  the  state  for  the  aid  of  public  schools. 

What  Minnesota's  present  system  of  state  aid  is  actually 
doing  is  shown  by  Table  7. 

TABLE  7 

WHAT  DOES  MINNESOTA'S  PRESENT  SYSTEM  OF 
STATE  AID  DO?  1920-21 


To 

Which  Has  a 
Valuation 
per  Child* 

The 
State  Gives 
per  Child* 

District  18,  Nicollet  County  

....  $4,200 

$35.22 

District  60    Nicollet  County  

2,300 

11.92 

District  5    Sherburne  County 

2400 

4531 

District  1,  Sherburne  County.  .  .  . 

1,600 

19.93 

District  17,  Mille  Lacs  County.. 

3,300 

4825 

District  13,  Mille  Lacs  County 

949 

2841 

*  Per  child  in  average  daily  attendance. 

From  Table  7,  we  see  that  in  Nicollet  County,  District  18r 
which  has  a  valuation  per  child  nearly  twice  that  of  District 
60,  receives  nearly  three  times  the  aid.  In  Sherburne  County, 
District  5,  which  has  a  valuation  per  child  one  and  one-half 
times  that  of  District  11,  receives  nearly  two  and  one-half 
times  as  much  aid  per  child  from  the  state.  In  Mille  Lacs 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA  35 

County,  District  17,  which  has  a  valuation  per  child  nearly 
four  times  that  of  District  13,  receives  from  the  state  nearly 
$20  more  per  child.  In  every  case,  the  district  most  able  to 
provide  school  revenues,  receives  the  greatest  assistance  from 
the  state.  - 

Inequalities  in  school  burdens,  inequalities  in  ability,  in- 
equalities in  effort,  inequalities  in  assistance  received  from  the 
state,  inequalities  in  educational  opportunities  provided  for 
the  children  of  Minnesota — this,  in  a  nutshell,  is  the  story 
of  public  education  in  Minnesota  to-day.  This  is  the  vision 
that  greets  our  eyes  whether  we  fix  our  attention  upon  the 
counties  or  upon  the  districts. 

Table  8  tells  the  story  for  the  nine  representative  counties 
which  have  been  chosen  for  special  study.  These  counties, 
as  we  have  said,  were  chosen  on  the  basis  of  their  relative 
ability  to  support  schools ;  namely,  the  wealth  per  school 
child. 

TABLE  8 

NINE  MINNESOTA  COUNTIES'  INEQUALITIES  IN 
SCHOOL  ATTENDANCE,  AVERAGE  SCHOOL  TAX 
RATES,  EXPENDITURE,  AND  STATE  AID  1920-21 


County 

Rank  among 
the  86          Average 
Counties          Total                             Average 
of  the  State        School                             School 
as  to  Wealth    Tax  Levy                    'Attendance 
per  Child         in  Mills                        per  Pupil 

Per  Cent 
Annual        of  School 
Expendi-      Expendi- 
ture per      ture  Fur- 
Pupil  in      nished  by 
Attendance  the  State 

St    Louis  

,           1 

39.2 

Months 

8 

Weeks 
0 

Days 
1 

$487 

4 

Murray     

.       2 

8.2 

5 

3 

4 

104 

18 

Sibley 

.       8 

6.2 

5 

3 

2 

79 

24 

Nicollet    .  .  . 

.     22 

7.5 

6 

1 

0 

123 

14 

Chippewa 

.     43 

11.8 

6 

2 

2 

78 

38 

Swift  

44 
.     66 

13.3 
15.7 

6 

1 
2 

3 

114 

19 

Sherburne    .  .  . 

6 

3 

139 

15 

Mille   Lacs  .  .  . 

.     85 

20.9 

6 

2 

4 

103 

19 

Hubbard 

86 

26.9 

6 

2 

1 

124 

23 

36       FLETCHER  H.  SWIFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLAINE 

In  the  first  column  of  Table  8  are  indicated  the  respective 
ranks  of  the  nine  counties  chosen.  We  discover  that  among 
our  nine  representative  counties,  the  annual  expenditure  per 
pupil  in  attendance  varies  all  the  way  from  $487  in  St.  Louis 
County  to  $78  in  Chippewa ;  the  average  school  attendance 
per  pupil,  from  eight  months  in  St.  Louis  County,  to  five 
months,  three  weeks,  and  two  days  in  Sibley  County ;  the 
average  rate  of  district  tax  from  39  mills  in  St.  Louis  County 
to  6  mills  in  Sibley. 

What  else  does  this  table  show?  It  shows  us  that  Sibley 
County,  which  levies  the  lowest  tax  and  spends  the  least 
money  per  pupil,  gets  nearly  one-fourth  of  its  total  school 
revenue  from  the  state,  whereas  Sherburne  County,  which 
ranks  sixty-sixth  as  to  wealth  per  school  child,  levies  a  school 
tax  of  fifteen  mills,  spends  $139  per  pupil,  and  gets  only  15 
percent  of  its  total  school  receipts  from  the  state.  Other 
comparisons  would  bring  out  equally  convincing  evidence  of 
the  total  unsatisfactoriness  of  the  injustice  of  Minnesota's 
present  system  of  state  aid.  These  facts  are  shown  in 
Tables  9  and  10.  Each  of  these  two  tables  shows  the  assessed 
valuation  per  school  child,  the  average  daily  attendance,  the 
district  tax  rate,  annual  expenditure,  and  state  aid  per  child 
received  by  the  richest  and  by  the  poorest  district  in  certain 
counties. 

From  Table  9,  we  see  that  the  richest  common  school  dis- 
trict in  St.  Louis  County  is  more  than  thirty-four  times  as 
rich  as  the  poorest,  yet  this  richest  district,  which  levies  a  tax 
of  only  twenty -seven  mills  and  is  able  to  spend  $852  per  child, 
receives  from  the  state  $119  per  child,  -whereas  the  poorest 
district,  which  levies  a  tax  of  thirty  mills,  is  able  to  spend  only 
$49  per  child  and  receives  from  the  state  only  $15  per  child. 

It  is  impossible  to  think  of  a  system  more  unjust  than  that 
which  reveals  itself  in  the  situation  in  St.  Louis  County,  a 
system  revealed  again  in  Chippewa,  Mille  Lacs,  and  Hubbard 
.counties.  It  is  difficult  to  say  in  which  of  these  counties  the 
situation  is  the  worst.  The  richest  district  in  Mille  Lacs 
levies  a  two-mill  tax  and  receives  $19  in  state  aid  per  child. 
The  poorest  district  levies  a  twenty-two  mill  tax  and  reports 
that  it  received  nothing  whatsoever  from  the  state.  Bear  in 
mind,  however,  that  the  richest  district  spends  only  $71  per 
child,  whereas  the  poorest  district  spends  $176  per  child. 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA 


37 


TABLE  9 

INEQUALITIES  OF  SCHOOL  BURDENS  AMONG  MINNE- 
SOTA COMMON  SCHOOL  DISTRICTS 

A   COMPARISON   OF  ABILITY,  EFFORT,  AND   AID    PER 

CHILD   IN  AVERAGE   DAILY  ATTENDANCE 

1920-21 


District 

Annual 

Total 

Ratio  of  Average     Tax       Expendi- 

State 

County 

District 
and 

Assessed 
Valuation 

Assessed 
Valuation 

Daily  Rate  for 
Attend-  Mainte- 

ture 
per 

Aid 
per 

Number 

per  Child 

per  Child 

ance      nance 

Child 

Child 

St.    Louis.  . 


Richest  36     $38,526 
Poorest     7         1,116 


34.5 


3       27     $852     $110 
94      30        49        15 


Murray    .  .  . 

.  .    Richest 

43 

42,840 

5 

5 

* 

0 

Poorest 

113 

5 

,320 

8 

21 

5 

56 

15 

Chippewa    . 

.  .    Richest 

73 

34 

,707 

4 

9 

184 

43 

Poorest 

20 

1 

,681 

21 

17 

4.2 

88 

5 

Mille   Lacs.. 


Richest     9         8,909 
Poorest  53         1,135 


17         2        71         19 

11       22       176          0 


Hubbard  .  . 

.  .    Richest 
Poorest 

26 
83 

11,255 
1,409 

8 

5 
30 

21 
36 

.6 

209 
118 

49 
4 

*  Not  reported. 

That  these  inequalities  extend  to  high  and  graded  school 
districts  is  shown  by  Table  10. 

From  Table  10,  we  see  that  District  1  in  St.  Louis  County, 
the  poorest  district  in  the  county,  receives,  $16  more  in  aid 
from  the  state  than  does  the  richest  district,  District  27.  Yet 
a  moment's  consideration  of  the  situation  existing  in  these 
two  districts  will  show  that  this  difference  in  state  aid  by  no 
means  offsets  differences  in  assessed  valuation  and  differ- 
ences in  tax  rates,  for  whereas  District  27  has  an  assessed 
valuation  per  child  of  nearly  $33,000,  District  1  has  an  as- 
sessed valuation  of  only  $723,  and  whereas  District  27  levies 
a  tax  of  less  than  twelve  mills,  District  1  levies  a  tax  of  over 
forty-one  mills. 


38       FLETCHER  H.  SWIFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLAINE 

TABLE  10 

INEQUALITIES  OF  SCHOOL  BURDENS  AMONG  MINNE- 
SOTA HIGH  AND  GRADED  SCHOOL  DISTRICTS 

A   COMPARISON   OF   ABILITY,   EFFORT,   AND   AID   PER 

CHILD   IN  AVERAGE   DAILY  ATTENDANCE 

1920-21 


County 

District 
and 
Number 

District 
Tax         Annual 
Ratio  of    Average  Rate  for  Expendi- 
Assessed     Assessed      Daily      Mainte-       ture 
Valuation  Valuation    Attend-     nance           per 
per  Child    per  Child       ance       (Mills)       Child 

Total 
State 
Aid 
per 
Child 

St.    Louis  .... 

Richest  27 

$32,789 

1925 

11.7 

$828 

$20 

Poorest     1 

723 

45         595 

41.4 

104 

36 

Murray        .  .  . 

Richest     7 
Poorest  52 

6,982 

2,238 

45 
3.1       328 

14.4 

32 

132 
128 

24 
26 

Chippewa    .  .  . 

Richest  62 

3,215 

145 

55.5 

92 

22 

Poorest  30 

1,343 

2.4       173 

45.5 

113 

30 

Mille   Lacs.  .  . 

Richest  17 

3,324 

77 

23.5 

134 

48 

Poorest  13 

949 

3.5      507 

62.4 

105 

28 

Hubbard    .... 

Richest     1 

1,370 

536 

53.1 

76 

26 

Poorest  43 

1,217 

1.1       183 

78.4 

139 

41 

How  will  the  education  provided  by  these  two  districts 
compare?  The  answer  is  given  in  the  column  which  shows 
that  District  27  spends  over  $800  per  year  on  each  school 
child,  whereas  District  1  spends  only  a  little  over  $100.  In 
Mille  Lacs  County,  District  17  is  three  and  one-half  times  as 
rich  as  District  13,  yet  District  17,  which  levies  a  tax  of  only 
23.5  mills,  gets  $48  per  child  from  the  state,  whereas  District 
13,  which  levies  a  tax  of  62.4  mills,  gets  only  $28  per  child  from 
the  state. 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA  39 

DECREASING  SHARE  OF  SCHOOL  BURDEN  BORNE 
BY  THE  STATE 

The  first  paragraphs  of  the  present  account  show  that 
Minnesota  stands  high  as  to  the  amount  of  money  she  is 
spending  on  public  schools,  but  exceedingly  low  as  to  results. 
Previous  pages  have  shown  one  of  the  chief  causes  of  this 
situation  is  the  district  system,  which  throws  the  responsi- 
bility of  providing  school  revenues  upon  units  so  absolutely 
unequal  that  it  is  humanly  impossible  for  them  ever  to  pro- 
vide equal  school  funds.  Not  only  is  Minnesota  to-day  throw- 
ing the  major  portion  of  her  school  burden  upon  these,  the 
most  unequal  of  all  possible  units,  but  the  tendency  through- 
out the  last  thirty-one  years  has  been  for  the  state  to  con- 
tribute a  less  and  less  proportion  of  the  school  costs  and  thus 
force  the  districts  to  assume  a  heavier  and  heavier  share  of 
the  burden.  In  1890,  the  state  furnished  $18.60  out  of  every 
$100  provided  for  the  schools.  In  1921,  she  furnished  only 
$12.90.  We  frequently  hear  men  exclaim  over  the  vast  in- 
creases in  the  school  moneys  furnished  by  the  state.  It  is 
true  that  the  state  has  steadily  increased  the  amount  she  has 
furnished,  but  this  amount  has  almost  steadily  failed  to  keep 
pace  with  the  enormously  increased  expenditure.  The  story 
of  this  declining  importance  of  the  state  as  a  provider  of  public 
school  revenue  in  Minnesota  is  shown  by  Figures  12  and  13 
which  follow,  and  which  need  no  further  comment. 

FIGURE  12 

PROPORTION  or  MINNESOTA  SCHOOL  BURDCNS 
BORNE  BY  SCHOOL  DISTRICTS,  THE  ^TATC,  AND  inn  FEIDCRAL  GOVERNMENT 


1090  1905  19£i 


40       FLETCHER  H.  SWIFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLAINE 

FIGURE  13 

PORTION  or  EACH  ^100  or  MINNESOTA  PUBLIC  SCHOOL  RECEIPTS 

[URNI5HCD     BY    THE.    STATE 

1690-1921 
•*30       «40        *50       *60       *70       *flO       *90 


Schools  cost  money.  The  question  is,  Where  shall  the 
money  come  from?  No  one  will  attempt  to  deny  that  school 
costs  which  have  increased  so  greatly  in  the  past  will  continue 
to  increase  as  rapidly  or  even  more  rapidly  in  the  future.  It 
has  already  been  shown  that  Minnesota's  increase  in  percent 
of  school  expenditure  is  far  below  that  of  other  leading  west- 
ern states.  To  attempt  in  the  future  to  continue  the  policy 
of  depending  upon  the  districts  for  the  overwhelming  propor 
tion  of  school  revenues  can  lead  only  to  disaster  and  to 
greater  failure.  It  is  absolutely  essential  that  Minnesota 
adopt  as  her  unit  from  which  to  derive  local  school  revenue 
one  far  more  capable  than  the  district  of  equalizing  school 
funds.  That  the  county  is  such  a  unit  is  a  matter  of  common 
knowledge. 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA  41 

THE  COUNTY  AS  AN  EQUALIZER  OF   SCHOOL 
BURDENS 

How  the  county  would  serve  to  equalize  school  revenues 
in  Minnesota  may  be  shown  by  a  few  examples.  Tables  9 
and  10  have  shown  the  assessed  valuation  per  child  in  the 
richest  and  poorest  rural  school  districts  and  in  the  richest 
and  poorest  high  and  graded  school  districts  in  a  number 
of  Minnesota  counties.  From  these  tables  we  learn  that  in 
Murray  County  the  valuation  per  child  in  rural  school  dis- 
tricts varies  all  the  way  from  $42,840  to  $5,320,  and  in  high 
and  graded  school  districts  it  varies  all  the  way  from  $6,982 
to  $2,238.  The  poorest  rural  district  in  Murray  County  has 
only  $5,320  worth  of  property  to  tax  for  the  education  of  each 
school  child,  and  the  poorest  high  school  district  in  this 
county  has  only  $2,238  which  it  may  tax  for  each  child. 

Contrast  with  these  wide  variations  in  district  wealth  per 
child  the  fact  that  the  county  wealth  per  child  in  Murray 
County  is  $9,162.  This  means  that  if  Murray  County  were 
to  dra\v  her  revenues  from  a  county  instead  of  a  district  tax, 
there  would  be,  instead  of  $42,000  for  the  education  of  each 
child  in  some  communities  and  $5,000  for  each  child  in 
others,  $9,000  for  each  child  throughout  the  entire  county. 
Even  more  significant  is  the  situation  in  Chippewa  County, 
where  district  valuations  vary  from  $34,707  per  child  down 
to  $1,681  pe,r  child  and  where  the  county  valuation  per  child 
is  approximately  $5,000. 

The  story  which  we  have  just  told  for  Murray  County 
and  for  Chippewa  County  is  told  for  the  entire  state  by  Fig- 
ure 14.  On  one  side  of  this  figure  all  the  counties  of  the 
state  are  arranged  in  six  groups,  and  on  the  other  side 
thirty-two  districts  chosen  from  various  counties  are  ar- 
ranged in  somewhat  similar  groups.  At  the  extreme  left  is 
indicated  the  valuation  per  child  enrolled  which  is  typical 
of  the  counties  included  in  the  group,  and  at  the  extreme 
right  is  the  valuation  per  child  enrolled  which  is  typical  of 
the  districts  included  in  the  group. 


42       FLETCHER  H.  SWIFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLAINE 


FIGURE  14 


ABILITY  or  66  MINNESOTA  COUNTIES 
TO  [USANCE  3cHoo_5 


TYPICAL  VALUATION 
PCR  CHILD 
OS  ROLLED 


Group  1. 1  District?  *4Q.OOO  -  50.000 


,000 


•»  14,<3 1 5    Group  1 , 1  County  over*10,QOO 


9.C50  Group  1  1  ,4  Counrie  *£j500-  10,000  m 

ZT50  Group  111,4  Cbunfe*7.000-  0,500  m 

6250  Group  IV,  27  Gbunri«*5#)0  -7000 

4,750  Group  V,  23  Counti<?5*4,000-5,500 
3250 
£250 


Group  VI, 

Group  VI  [,  6  Coun!ie5*£000-2500 


ABILITY  or  3£  MINNESOTA  SCMOOL  DISTRICTS 
TO  FINANCE 


TYPICAL  WIIATION 

PER  Q-IILD 
ENROLLED 

•      *43,833 


33,746 

15,000- 
- 14,000- 
- 13,000- 

•Oroup  III,  I  Districts*!  1,000-13000  12  101 
11,000 
10,000- 
9,000- 
5,000 
-  7,000- 

6000-  *mm Group  IV, 4  Districts  S4,000- 1 1 000  6 150 

5,000- 
4,000- 

3  OOQ  •  Group  V,  3  Districts  *  3,000-4.000 
Group  VI,  5  Districts  *  2,000-3,000 


000- 
1,000- 


I  Group  VII,  10 Districts4 1,000- £.000 
Group VIII,  t  Districts  *500- 1,000 


3,3?4 
ZAOO 
1,369 


SUMMARY  or  VALUATION'S  PCR  CHILD  ENROLLED 
-CouNTiE5-  -DISTRICTS-  - 

*  14,915 Riches' fi45,6£6 

6,250 Typical 2,565 

SX50 RDoresr 731 


Figure  14  shows  in  a,  striking  manner  what  would  be  the 
effect  of  adopting  the  county  as  the  unit  from  which  to  de- 
rive local  revenues  for  school  support.  Out  of  the  group 
of  thirty-two  districts  shown,  more  than  one-third  of  the 
entire  number  are  included  in  Groups  VII  and  VIII  in 
which  the  assessed  valuation  per  child  is  less  than  $2,000. 
Were  the  county  to  be  adopted  by  Minnesota  as  the  local 
unit  of  school  support,  scarcely  a  child  in  the  state  would 
have  back  of  him  a  valuation  of  less  than  $2,250.  This 
would,  of  course,  mean  that  districts  which  now  have  $33,OOC 
and  $43,000  per  child  to  draw  upon  would  no  longer  have 
these  fabulous  sums,  but  instead  would  have  approximately 
$10,000  or  $15,000  per  child.  Undoubtedly  the  richer  districts 
will  object  to  such  a  policy,  but  the  objections  of  individual 
communities  should  be  overridden  in  favor  of  a  policy  which 
promises  to  even  out  somewhat  the  gross  inequalities  now- 
existing. 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA  43 

TWO   COUNTIES   ARE  ALREADY   DOING  THIS 

Two  counties  in  Minnesota  through  special  legislation 
have  already  secured  a  county  school  tax — Itasca  County  a 
ten-mill  county  tax  and  St.  Louis  County  an  eight-tenths  of 
a  mill  (0.8  mill)  county  tax.  Each  county  levies  these  taxes 
with  a  view  to  equalizing  school  revenues.  The  executive 
secretary  of  the  Cook  Commercial  Club,  of  St.  Louis  County, 
in  a  prolonged  defense  of  the  county  tax  now  under  attack 
writes  in  part  as  follows: 

Ninety-five  percent  of  St.  Louis  County  is  rural.  There  is  no 
better  inducement  we  can  offer  to  the  furthering  of  agriculture  in  this 
district  than  a  school  where  children  can  and  will  receive  at  least  a 
fair  education.  We  have  not  heard  a  farmer  make  a  complaint  against 
this  tax.  Shall  illiteracy  be  allowed  to  gain  in  the  rural  districts? 
This  is  a  question  of  education  and  citizenship.  Any  law  that  has 
for  its  purpose  the  furthering  and  bettering  of  the  educational  facili- 
ties for  the  children,  will  have  the  support  of  all  progressive  people. 

Space  does  not  permit  entering  upon  a  description  in  this 

brief  account  of  the  county   taxes   levied   by  St.   Louis  and 

Itasca.     The  interested  reader  will  find  a  complete  statement 

regarding  them  in  the  longer  report  from  which  the  present 

«brief  summary  is  taken  (see  Authors'  Explanatory  Note). 

The  above  paragraphs  have  urged  in  no  uncertain  tones 
the  substitution  of  the  county  for  the  district  as  the  local 
unit  of  school  organization  and  school  support.  We  should 
perhaps  pause  for  the  moment  to  suggest  what  such  a  change 
implies.  Briefly  stated,  it  means  that  the  schools  of  each 
county  shall  be  organized  in  much  the  same  manner  as  are 
the  schools  of  our  best  city  systems.  The  county  school 
board  and  the  county  superintendent  should  have  all  the 
powers  and  responsibilities  placed  upon  similar  public  of- 
ficials in  our  best  city  systems.  This  will  include  the  re- 
sponsibility of  determining  where  schools  shall  be  placed, 
when  and  where  school  buildings  shall  be  erected,  and  how 
much  they  shall  cost.  These  are  but  a  few  of  the  multitudes 
of  matters  which  will  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  county 
superintendent  and  his  board. 

The  present  report  is  concerned  primarily  not  with  the 
superiority  of  the  county  over  the  district  as  a  unit  of  or- 
ganization, administration,  control,  and  supervision,  but  as 


44       FLETCHER  H.  SWIFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLAINE 

an  economic  unit;  in  other  words  as  a  source  of  school 
revenue.  Its  superiority  in  this  respect  lies  in  the  fact  that 
although  counties  do  vary  greatly  in  wealth  per  school  child 
and  consequently  in  their  ability  to  provide  school  revenues, 
nevertheless  this  variation  is  much  less  than  in  the  case  of 
school  districts. 

WILL  THE  COUNTY  UNIT  EQUALIZE  EDUCATION 
IN  MINNESOTA? 

There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  great  superiority  of  the 
county  over  the  district  as  the  unit  of  local  organization  and 
support  for  public  schools.  Nevertheless,  despite  this  su- 
periority, it  is  evident  from  the  facts  already  presented  that 
the  counties  of  Minnesota  are  very  unequal  in  wealth  and 
consequently  very  unequal  in  their  ability  to  provide  school 
revenue.  However  much  Minnesota  may  improve  her  edu- 
cational situation  by  abolishing  school  districts  and  estab- 
lishing the  county  as  the  local  unit,  flagrant  and  disastrous 
inequalities  will  continue  as  long  as  the  local  units,  even 
though  they  be  the  counties,  are  depended  upon  for  the  major 
portion  of  the  school  revenues.  Neither  counties  nor  any 
other  local  unit  which  might  be  devised  can  equalize  school 
revenues  school  burdens,  and  educational  opportunities. 
The  state  and  only  the  state  can  do  this.  The  truth  of  this 
assertion  becomes  increasingly  evident  when  we  extend  our 
survey  to  include  all  of  Minnesota's  eighty-six  counties  as  is 
done  in  Figure  15. 

Figure  15  shows  the  eighty-six  counties  of  Minnesota  ar- 
ranged in  seven  groups.  The  first  of  the  columns  at  the  left 
indicates  the  number  of  counties  included  in  each  of  the 
seven  groups ;  the  second  column,  the  percent  of  Minne- 
sota's total  average  daily  attendance  included  in  the  total 
number  of  counties  in  each  group.  The  third  column  shows 
what  is  the  typical  valuation  per  child  in  average  daily  at- 
tendance for  the  counties  in  the  group.  The  bars  represent 
the  valuation  per  child  in  average  daily  attendance  in  the 
richest,  poorest,  and  typical  counties  in  each  group.  Group 
1  which  contains  only  one  county,  St.  Louis,  is,  of  course, 
represented  by  only  one  bar. 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA 

FIGURE  15 

INEQUALITY  IN  ABILITY  or  MINNESOTA  COUNTIES 
TO  SUPPORT  5CHOOL3 


45 


Number  Percent  of  total     \/bluation 

of  Average  per  Chi  Id 

Counties          Daily        in  Average  Ebily 

in  Group    Attendance      Attendance 


Counties  in  J3ewn  Groups 
Richest,  Typical  and  Poorest  County  in  Each  Group 


*15POO 


#10,000 
4--       —L--        --  9,250-- 


4--         -  J--        --  7,750-- 


__     —  45-  -        --4750-- 


21--       --17--         --3,250-- 

2,500 
6  ----  -1-  5  ------  2,250- 


'3,000  *6.000          ^9,000          ^12,000         *15POO 


Figure  15  shows  us  that  the  richest  county  in  the  state 
is  more'  than  six  times  as  able  to  provide  school  revenues 
as  are  the  six  counties  included  in  the  poorest,  i.e.,  the  seventh 
group.  The  four  counties  included  in  the  second  group  are 
more  than  four  times  as  able  to  furnish  school  revenue  as 
are  the  counties  included  in  the  seventh  group,  and  approxi- 
mately three  times  as  able  as  the  twenty-one  counties  in- 
cluded in  the  sixth  group. 

From  Figure  15,  we  see  that  7  percent  of  the  children  in 
average  daily  attendance  in  the  public  schools  of  Minnesota 
live  in  a  county  where  the  wealth  back  of  each  child  is  nearly 
$15,000.  Contrast  with  this  the  fact  that  22  percent  of  Minne- 
sota's children,  living  in  the  twenty-seven  counties  included 
in  the  sixth  and  seventh  groups,  have  back  of  them  county 
valuations  of  less  than  $4,000  per  child.  Bear  in  mind  that 
this  22  percent  of  the  children  is  nearly  one-fourth  of  the 


46       FLETCHER  H.  SWIFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLA1NE 

children  in  the  state  and  that  twenty-seven  counties  con- 
stitute almost  one-third  of  the  total  number  of  counties  in 
the  state.  Sixty-seven  percent  of  the  children  live  in  the 
counties  included  in  Groups  5,  6,  and  7,  whereas  thirty-three 
percent  live  in  counties  whose  valuation  is  over  $5,000  per 
child. 

The  impossibility  of  ever  deriving  equal  revenues  from 
units  so  unequal  in  wealth  per  child  as  the  counties  of  Min- 
nesota is  too  evident  to  require  further  comment.  No  further 
argument  should  be  necessary  to  convince  every  citizen  of 
Minnesota  that  even  the  abolition  of  the  district  and  the 
establishment,  in  its  place,  of  the  county  unit,  although  it 
will  be  a  most  important  step  in  the  right  direction,  will 
never  equalize  school  revenues.  Neither  school  burdens  nor 
educational  opportunities  will  ever  be  equalized  as  long  as 
Minnesota  depends  for  the  greater  part  of  her  public  school 
revenue  upon  local  units  of  any  sort.  The  state  and  only  the 
state  will  ever  be  able  to  bring  about  such  equalization. 

PUBLIC    EDUCATION    IS    A    FUNCTION    OF    THE 

STATE    AND    PUBLIC    SCHOOLS    ARE 

STATE  INSTITUTIONS 

Public  education  is  a  function  of  the  state,  and  public 
schools  are  state,  not  local,  institutions.  This  declaration  is 
not  based  upon  theory,  for  the  matter  has  been  tested  in  the 
supreme  court,  and  the  court  has  ruled  that  public  schools 
are  state  institutions  and  that  the  powers  exercised  by  local 
units  are  distinctly  delegated  powers.  The  wealth  within  a 
state  available  for  taxation  for  the  support  of  public  schools 
belongs  to  the  state,  i.e.,  to  all  the  children  of  the  state.  The 
district  system  is  an  inheritance  from  colonial  days  when 
schools  were  regarded,  controlled,  and  supported  as  local 
charitable  and  semi-church  institutions.  That  day  is  past, 
and  Minnesota  should  free  herself  from  the  shackles  of  a 
system  which  makes  equality  of  educational  opportunity  im- 
possible. 

Equality  of  educational  opportunity  for  all  the  children 
of  the  entire  state  and  equality  of  school  burdens  sustained 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA  47 

by  local  school  units,  the  counties,  and  the  districts,  consti- 
tute a  brief  but  correct  statement  of  the  aim  underlying  gen- 
eral, that  is,  state  and  county  aid.  Equality  implies  much 
more  than  universal  education  and  state-wide  equality  in  the 
length  of  the  school  year.  It  means  equality  of  conditions 
under  which  children  study  and  play.  It  means  trained 
teachers,  and  healthful,  well-equipped,  inviting  schoolhouses 
and  yards,  equality  in  the  scope,  vitality,  and  richness  of 
studies.  The  only  possibility  of  approaching  equality  in  this 
broad  sense  lies  partly  in  proper  organization  and  administra- 
tion of  school  units  and  partly  in  equality  of  school  support. 
Equality  in  school  support  means  equal  distribution  of  eco- 
nomic responsibility  and  economic  power.  Such  economic 
equality  can  come  only  if  the  amount  of  aid  granted  to  the 
school  unit  is  determined  on  the  basis  of  the  ability  (i.e.,  the 
financial  resources)  and  the  effort  of  this  unit. 

WHAT  SHARE  OF  THE  SCHOOL  BURDEN  SHOULD 
BE  BORNE  BY  THE  STATE? 

Equality  in  educational  opportunity  will  never  be  se- 
cured until  the  schools  cease  to  be  in  the  last  analysis,  both 
from  the  standpoint  of  control  and  from  the  standpoint  of 
support,  dominantly  local  institutions  and  until  the  state 
provides  support  and  directs  those  factors  upon  which  equal- 
ity primarily  depends  and  which  may,  therefore,  be  termed 
the  minimum  essentials  of  educational  equality. 

What,  now,  are  the  factors  which  to  the  largest  degree 
make  the  educational  opportunities  offered  within  the  vari- 
ous communities  of  a  state  equal  or  unequal?  Without  a 
moment's  hesitation  we  answer:  the  number  and  quality  of 
teachers  employed,  the  length  of  school  term,  the  effective- 
ness of  general  administration  and  supervision,  and  the  qual- 
ity and  adequacy  of  the  apparatus  directly  related  to  instruc- 
tion, including  especially  such  materials  as  textbooks.  It  is 
well  known  that  teachers'  wages  constitute  the  largest  single 
item  of  school  expenditure  in  every  community  and,  also,  that 
as  is  the  teacher  so  is  the  school.  Studies  made  in  compara- 
tively recent  times  have  shown  further  that  the  quality  of 


48       FLETCHER  H.  SWIFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLAINE 

instruction  is  largely  determined  by  the  quality  of  supervi- 
sion. Place  upon  the  state  the  responsibility  of  furnishing 
funds  to  provide  every  school  with  enough  money  to  pay  a 
minimum  salary  tc  every  teacher  for  an  entire  school  year 
of  uniform  length,  such  minimum  varying  with  the  qualifi- 
cations of  the  individual  teacher,  and,  further,  place  upon  the 
state  the  responsibility  of  providing  the  materials  directly 
related  to  instruction  and  the  moneys  necessary  to  guarantee 
the  scientific  supervision  of  every  school,  and  existing  edu- 
cational inequalities  will  be  rapidly  evened  out.  Let  us  now 
turn  directly  to  the  question,  what  proportion  of  total  school 
revenue  will  the  state  be  required  to  provide  under  this  pro- 
posed plan,  and  what  proportion  will  be  furnished  by  the 
local  school  units? 

We  can  best  answer  this  question  by  finding  out  what 
percent  of  the  total  annual  expenditure  for  public  schools 
is  devoted  to  the  items  just  named.  For  this  purpose  we 
may  consider  the  United  States  as  a  whole  and  California,  a 
state  whose  standards  with  respect  to  teachers'  salaries  are 
exceeded  by  none  and  a  state,  moreover,  which  furnishes  free 
textbooks.  In  1915,  practically  60  percent  of  the  total  school 
costs  in  the  United  States  were  devoted  to  teachers'  salaries 
and  textbooks ;  in  California  approximately  55  percent.  In 
1918,  the  percents  were  respectively  58  for  the  United  States ; 
61  for  California.  In  1920,  California  devoted  little  less  than 
63  percent  of  her  total  school  revenues  to  teachers'  salaries 
and  textbooks.  In  general,  we  may  say  that  from  60  to  65 
percent  of  total  school  costs  would,  under  normal  conditions, 
be  devoted  to  teachers'  salaries  and  textbooks.  Were  we 
to  add  to  these  items  the  costs  of  adequate  supervision  and 
apparatus,  other  than  textbooks  directly  related  to  instruc- 
tion, the  percent  would  probably  range  from  65  to  70.  In 
any  case,  the  proportion  will  vary  from  year  to  year  and 
from  community  to  community  and  consequently  must  be 
determined  from  time  to  time. 

It  has  been  definitely  stated  by  those  recommending  a 
three-mill  state  school  tax  that  it  would  yield  an  amount 
approximately  equal  to  that  now  provided  by  the  state  one- 
mill  school  tax  and  state  appropriation.  There  is  no  real 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA  49 

choice  between  the  policy  of  state  appropriations  and  a  state 
school  tax  (see  below  page  51).  The  real  question  is  that 
of  providing  a  state  fund  sufficient  to  enable  the  state  to  even 
out  the  inequalities  among  local  units. 

This  report  has  shown  that  this  result  can  best  be  ac- 
complished if  the  state  assumes  from  65  to  70  percent  of 
school  expenditures.  The  revenue  provided  by  a  three-mill 
state  tax  in  Minnesota  would  be  altogether  inadequate  for 
such  purposes. 

At  the  present  time,  the  individual  districts  have  no  way 
of  knowing  from  year  to  year  what  sum  will  be  forthcoming 
to  them  from  the  state.  The  first  step  which  the  state  must 
take  is  to  determine  the  amount  which  she  will  provide  for 
each  teaching  position  or  each  unit  of  full  attendance,  and 
then  adopt  ways  and  means  of  insuring  this  annually  to 
the  schools. 

If  Minnesota  is  not  yet  ready  to  go  as  far  as  the  present 
report  advises,  which  is  to  place  upon  the  state  from  65  to 
70  percent  of  the  burden,  then  let  her  adopt  such  a  policy 
as  California  has  effectively  carried  on  for  many  years  and 
which  has  placed  her  among  the  very  first  states  of  the 
Union  educationally.  This  policy,  as  we  have  already  stated, 
guarantees  $1,400  a  year  to  every  elementary  teaching  posi- 
tion in  the  state,  $700  from  state  sources  and  $700  from 
county  sources. 

ESTABLISH  AN  INTERIM  COMMISSION  ON  SCHOOL 

FINANCE 

Minnesota  should  provide  for  the  establishment  of  an  in- 
terim legislative  commission  on  school  finance,  one  of  whose 
functions  shall  be  to  determine  as  nearly  as  possible  the 
amount  of  money  needed  during  the  next  biennium  to  pay  the 
state's  share  of  the  costs  of  teachers'  salaries,  free  textbooks, 
supervision,  and  other  projects  to  be  financed  by  the  state. 
Such  a  commission  should  report  this  amount  to  the  legislature 
at  each  session,  and  the  legislature  should  forthwith  take  steps 
to  provide  the  necessary  revenue. 


50       FLETCHER  H.  SWIFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLAINE 

It  should  be  understood  that  the  policy  proposed  here 
would  not  prevent  counties  from  paying  salaries  above  the 
minima  fixed  by  the  state  where  the  electors  of  the  county  or 
the  county  school  board  should  determine  this  to  be  advisable 
In  fact,  the  state  should  provide  a  fund  for  subsidizing  counties 
which  employ  teachers  whose  qualifications  exceed  the  minima 
set  by  the  State  Board  of  Education.  Massachusetts  has  clear- 
ly shown  what  excellent  results  may  be  accomplished  from 
such  a  policy. 

WHERE  SHALL  THE  MONEY  COME  FROM? 

Any  proposal  to  have  the  state  furnish  out  of  state  funds 
from  65  to  70  percent  of  the  total  revenue  needed  for  the  sup- 
port of  public  schools,  at  once  raises  the  question,  where  shall 
the  money  come  from? 

Minnesota  has  long  had  the  reputation  both  within  her  own 
borders  and  throughout  the  United  States  of  being  possessed 
of  a  magnificent  endowment  for  public  schools.  This  endow- 
ment at  the  present  time  consists  of  certain  unsold  school  lands 
and  a  principal  amounting  to  nearly  $38,000,000.  Far  more 
important  than  the  value  of  Minnesota's  permanent  endow- 
ment is  the  percent  of  the  total  school  revenue  derived  from 
them  and  the  possibility  of  their  becoming  increasingly 
important  as  sources  of  school  revenue.  Table  11,  which  fol- 
lows, shows  the  condition  of  Minnesota's  endowment  magni- 
ficent at  the  present  time,  and  the  number  of  dollars  out  of 
every  $100  which  it  provided  for  public  schools  in  1900,  1910, 
1920,  and  1921. 

We  see  from  Table  11  that  the  proportion  of  Minnesota's 
public  school  revenue  coming  from  her  much  talked  of  en- 
dowments has,  for  more  than  twenty  years,  been  of  decreasing 
importance  and  that  at  the  present  time  the  amount  con- 
tributed is  so  small  as  to  be  of  distinctly  negligible  impor- 
tance. If  the  state  is  to  furnish  an  increasing  proportion  of 
the  total  school  revenue  in  the  future,  such  increase  is  not 
to  be  derived  from  the  permanent  school  fund  and  the  swamp 
land  fund.  Let  us  now  consider  from  what  other  sources 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA  51 

Minnesota  has  derived  her  school  moneys  and  the  relative 
importance  of  each.  Table  12  shows  how  each  $100  of  total 
school  revenue  in  Minnesota  was  secured  in  1900,  1910,  1920, 
and  1921. 

TABLE   11 

MINNESOTA'S    ENDOWMENT    MAGNIFICENT 
VALUE,  1922,  AND  INCOME,  1921 

Permanent   School   Fund $33,750,529 

One-half  Swamp  Land  Fund 4,111,768 


$37,862,297 

Combined  Income,  1921 1,560,596 

Total   School    Receipts 51,776,057 

Out  of  every  $100  for  public  schools.  Minnesota's  endow- 
ment magnificent  provided  approximately: 

1900 $12.00 

1910 7.00 

1920 3.00 

1921 .  3.00 


From  Table  12,  which  follows,  we  see  that  the  only  state 
sources  upon  which  Minnesota  has  depended  for  school  reve- 
nue are  appropriations  and  a  state  tax. 

There  has  been  much  discussion  as  to  which  is  the  better 
method  of  providing  school  moneys  for  state  aid,  by  making 
appropriations  out  of  the  general  fund  or  by  providing  for 
a  state  tax,  the  proceeds  of  which  shall  be  devoted  to  schools. 

In  favor  of  the  state  tax  versus  state  appropriations  it  has 
been  urged  that  as  the  wealth,  school  population,  and  school 
costs  increase,  the  income  provided  for  the  schools  increases ; 
also  that  whereas  appropriations  frequently  depend  upon  the 


52       FLETCHER  H.  SWIFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLAINE 

mood  and  sometimes  even  upon  the  whim  of  the  legislature, 
a  state  tax  is  stable  and  its  proceeds  assured.  Undoubtedly 
influenced  by  these  considerations  the  Minnesota  State  Board 
of  Education  in  1920  in  its  report  upon  The  Revision  of  State 
Aid  urged  the  substitution  of  a  state  mill  tax  for  existing 
biennial  appropriations. 

TABLE  12 

HOW  MINNESOTA  SECURED  EACH  $100  OF  TOTAL 
SCHOOL  REVENUES,  1900-1921 


Permanent 

School  State  District 

|    Federal       and  Swamp  Appro-  Total  State       (Chiefly 

Year  Aid  Land  Funds  •  priations  State  Tax       and  Federal       Taxation) 


1900 

$0.00 

$11.40 

$1.40 

$11.10 

$23.90 

$76.10 

1910 

0.0 

7.00 

6.10 

7.60 

20.70 

79.30 

1920 

0.10 

3.00 

7.10 

4.40 

14.60 

85.40 

1921 

0.10 

3.00 

6.40 

3.30 

12.80 

87.20 

On  the  other  hand,  Illinois  and  California,  after  experi- 
menting with  the  state  school  property  tax,  both  abandoned 
it  in  favor  of  state  appropriations.  A  very  serious  objection 
to  the  state  school  tax  of  a  fixed  rate  is  that  there  is  no  guar- 
antee that  it  will  furnish  the  amount  of  money  necessary. 
This  difficulty  may,  however,  be  avoided ;  instead  of  fixing  a 
definite  rate,  the  laws  may  provide  for  the  levying  of  a  state 
mill  property  tax  sufficient  to  raise  a  fixed  sum,  or,  better  yet, 
sufficient  to  enable  the  state  to  fulfill  its  obligations  to  the 
public  schools.  Four  states  in  the  Union  are  already  levying 
state  school  taxes  of  this  sort;  namely,  Arizona,  which  levies 
a  state  tax  sufficient  to  provide  $20  per  child  in  average  daily 
attendance ;  Utah,  which  levies  a  tax  of  undetermined  rate 
sufficient  to  raise  $25  per  child  from  6  to  17  years  of  age; 
Washington,  which  levies  a  tax  sufficient,  when  added  to  the 
income  of  the  permanent  school  fund,  to  produce  $20  per 
child  of  school  age;  and  Wisconsin,  which  levies  a  tax  suffi- 
cient to  pay  state  aid  to  public  schools. 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA'*  ^\  :    5g 

The  problem  of  providing  school  revenue  is  inseparable 
from  the  general  problem  of  public  finance.  It  is  evident  that 
if  the  state  is  to  assume  from  65  to  70  percent  of  the  burden  of 
school  costs,  she  must  discover  new  sources  of  revenue  and 
must  be  allowed,  in  case  these  new  sources  of  revenue  do  not 
provide  adequate  funds,  to  levy  a  state  school  tax  upon  real 
and  personal  property  sufficient  to  make  up  any  deficiency. 

California,  which  by  constitutional  amendment  abolished 
the  state  school  property  tax,  was  careful  to  leave  the  way 
open  for  the  legislature  to  levy  such  a  tax  for  school  purposes, 
should  the  proceeds  of  corporation  and  inheritance  taxes  prove 
insufficient  for  school  needs. 

Among  the  new  sources  of  revenue  which  we  recommend 
to  the  careful  consideration  of  the  Minnesota  legislature  are 
a  state  graduated  inc'ome  tax  and  a  severance  tax.  The  former 
of  these  is  now  employed  effectively  and  satisfactorily  as  a 
source  of  school  revenue  in  Massachusetts  and  Delaware. 
The  severance  tax  now  levied  by  Louisiana  consists  of  a  tax 
of  2  percent  on  the  gross  valuation  of  all  natural  products 
severed  from  the  soil.  At  the  present  time,  Minnesota  levies 
an  occupational  tax  upon  iron  ore-mining.  Tliere  is  no  more 
reason  why  iron  ore  should  be  taxed  than  timber,  granite, 
and  all  other  natural  products  which,  when  taken  from  the 
soil,  permanently  deprive  the  state  of  its  natural  sources  of 
wealth.  All  the  arguments  in  favor  of  taxing  iron  ore  are 
equally  valid  for  the  taxing  of  timber,  granite,  gravel,  and  all 
other  non-agricultural  natural  products. 

With  the  abolition  of  the  school  district,  every  county 
should  be  required  to  levy  a  county  school  tax  of  a  minimum 
rate.  The  revenue  provided  by  the  state  should  be  turned 
into  a  state  equalization  fund.  Out  of  this  fund  there  should 
be  insured  a  minimum  sum  for  every  teaching  position.  In 
addition,  the  state  should  provide  an  equalization  fund  to  be 
distributed  among  those  counties  which  levy  a  prescribed 
county  rate  and  are  yet  unable  to  raise  a  sum  per  child  or  per 
teacher  employed  sufficient  to  provide  satisfactory  facilities, 
i.e.,  facilities  measuring  up  to  the  standards  established  by 
the  State  Department  of  Education. 


t  &%7jCHER  H.  SWIFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLAIN  E 


In  striking  contrast  to  Minnesota's  long'  continued  refusal 
to  distribute  state  .school  funds  in  a  manner  calculated  to  even 
out  inequalities.  Colorado,  by  legislation  enacted  in  1921,  has 
placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  state  superintendent  of  public 
instruction  the  entire  income  from  her  permanent  school  fund. 
California,  whose  system  outranks  that  of  Minnesota  at  every 
point,  guarantees  for  every  elementary  teaching  position  in 
the  state  $700  per  year  from  state  funds  and  $700  per  year 
from  county  funds.  Every  county  in  California  is  required  to 
levy  a  tax  for  elementary  schools  sufficient  to  provide  $30  per 
pupil  in  average  daily  attendance  in  elementary  schools  and 
$60  per  pupil  in  average  daily  attendance  in  high  schools.  In 
Minnesota,  at  the  present  time,  high  schools  are  obliged  to 
accept  as  pupils  students  from  other  districts.  The  moneys 
provided  by  the  state  to  pay  the  tuition  of  such  pupils  fall  far 
below  the  actual  costs  of  instruction  in  many  cases.  What 
is  worse,  the  territory  which  lies  outside  of  high  school  dis- 
tricts escapes  bearing  any  just  share  of  the  burden.  In  some 
communities,  high  school  districts  have  been  actually  forced 
to  erect  new  buildings,  because  they  are  compelled  to  give 
space  to  students  from  outlying  districts. 

A  law  should  be  passed  providing  for  a  county  high  school 
tax  to  be  levied  in  every  county  upon  all  property  not  in- 
cluded in  any  high  school  district.  The  proceeds  of  this  tax 
should  constitute  a  fund  for  defraying  the  cost  of  educating 
non-resident  high  school  pupils. 

The  present  brief  report  can  not  attempt  to  name  all  the 
projects  which  should  receive  state  support.  To  do  so  wrould 
amount  to  little  less  than  describing  a  reorganization  of  a 
large  part  of  Minnesota's  public  school  system.  The  present 
report  is  obliged  to  confine  itself  almost  entirely  to  the  finan- 
cial problems  of  the  schools.  Although  these  problems  are 
inseparable  from  policies  and  organization,  it  is  impossible 
to  dwell  upon  reforms  in  policies  and  in  organization  except 
insofar  as  they  directly  enter  into  our  consideration  of  school 
finance.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  space  does  not  permit  an 
account  of  the  policies  pursued  by  California,  Massachusetts, 
and  other  states,  but  the  interested  citizen  is  referred  to  a 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA  ^  /.   :     '$$ 

bulletin  recently  published  by  the  United  States  Bureau  en- 
titled, "State  Policies  in  Public  School  Finance"  (Bureau  of 
Education  Bulletin,  1922,  No.  6). 

The  reforms  which  have  been  suggested  or  implied 
throughout  the  present  report  are  undoubtedly  radical,  but 
the  conditions  we  have  discovered  can  be  cured  only  by  rad- 
ical measures,  for  Minnesota  has  made  many  attempts  to 
patch  up  her  system  of  financing  public  schools.  These  at- 
tempts have  in  many  cases  been  beneficial,  in  others  futile, 
but  in  the  last  analysis  are  entirely  inadequate.  There  comes 
a  time  when  an  old  system  or  an  old  machine  can  no  longer 
be  patched  up  and  remodeled.  It  must  be  discarded  if  the 
individual  or  the  organization  employing  it  wishes  to  keep 
abreast  of  the  maroh  of  progress.  It  has  frequently  been 
urged  within  the  past  few  years  that  Minnesota  provide  for 
a  state  three-mill  school  tax.  It  has  been  definitely  stated  by 
those  recommending  this  particular  rate  that  it  would  yield 
an  amount  approximately  equal  to  that  now  provided  by  the 
state  one-mill  tax  and  state  appropriations.  Such  a  provision 
would  be  mere  patching  of  her  present  policies  and  would  in 
no  sense  solve  her  problem. 

It  remains  to  bring  together  in  a  summarized  form  the 
recommendations  and  conclusions  presented  in  various  por- 
tions of  the  present  report. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Preceding  pages  have  described  existing  educational  condi- 
tions in  Minnesota  and  present  policies ;  they  have  not  only 
pointed  out  the  defects  but  have  in  many  instances  suggested 
remedies.  They  have  also  explained  the  reasons  for  many  of 
these  recommendations.  It  is  desirable  to  bring  together  here 
at  the  close  of  our  report  the  recommendations  which  have  been 
scattered  throughout  different  sections.  In  view,  however,  of  the 
fullness  of  explanation  and  of  the  treatment  already  given,  it  is 
deemed  unnecessary  to  explain  or  to  justify  the  proposals  made 
at  this  point.  We  shall  confine  ourselves,  therefore,  to  a  sum- 
mary statement  of  the  recommendations  themselves.  Should 
the  reader  desire  fuller  knowledge  of  the  bases  upon  which  these 
recommendations  are  made,  he  will  find  it  in  the  longer  study  of 


;  56     \FkETCHER  H.  SWIFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLAINS 

which  this  is  a  summary  (see  Authors'  Explantory  Note,  p.  3)- 
We  may  well  add  to  the  recommendations  specifically  presented  in 
earlier  portions  of  this  report  certain  others  which,  although  not 
stated,  are,  by  implication  or  as  a  consequence  of  principles  laid 
down,  contained  therein. 

SECTION  I.  Abolish  the  present  antiquated,  unfair  methods  of 
apportioning  state  school  moneys  and  adopt  modernized,  scientific 
methods  which  will  recognize  variations  among  the  local  school 
units,  as  to  length  of  school  year,  assessed  valuation  per  child  in 
average  daily  attendance,  local  tax  rate,  aggregate  days  of  attend- 
ance, number  and  qualifications  of  school  officers  and  teachers 
employed. 

SEC.  2.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  income  from  the  perma- 
nent school  funds  can  not  be  distributed  in  accordance  with  the 
principles  set  forth  in  section  i  without  the  adoption  of  a  consti- 
tutional amendment,  it  is  further  recommended  that  the  standards 
employed  as  a  basis  of  determining  the  method  of  distributing  the 
income  of  the  permanent  school  funds  be  interpreted  by  legislative 
action  so  as  to  conform  with  existing  conditions,  i.e.,  140  days 
attendance  in  a  school  term  of  8  months. 

SEC.  3.  Require  a  minimum  county  school  tax  of  not  less  than 
ten  mills,  the  proceeds  to  be  distributed  within  the  county  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  principles  set  forth  in  section  I. 

SEC.  4.  Establish  8  months  (160  days)  as  the  minimum  school 
year. 

SEC.  5.  Abolish  school  districts. 

SEC.  6.  Establish  the  county  as  the  local  school  unit. 

SEC.  7.  Extend  to  the  counties  the  taxing  and  bonding  powers 
now  enjoyed  by  independent  districts. 

The  plan  here  proposed  of  abolishing  school  districts  and  of  establish- 
ing the  county  as  the  local  unit  of  support  will  equalize  local  rates  of  taxa- 
tion within  the  counties. 

SEC.  8.  Provide  a  state  equalization  fund  to  be  apportioned 
among  those  counties  which  levy  a  county  school  tax  of  15  mills 
or  more  but  are  unable  to  produce  thereby  for  every  child  of 
school  age  resident  in  the  county  a  quota  equal  to  the  state  aver- 
age county  quota  per  child  derived  from  proceeds  of  such  county 
taxes. 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA'  /. 


SEC.  9.  Empower  and  require  the  State  Department  of  Educa- 
tion to  fix  and  to  modify  from  time  to  time,  as  conditions  seem 
to  warrant,  the  requirements  and  standards  which  counties  must 
meet  in  order  to  receive  quotas  of  state  moneys. 

SEC.  10.  Require  county  and  all  other  school  boards  to  pre- 
pare annually  a  budget  of  estimated  school  costs  for  the  next  suc- 
ceeding year,  such  budget  to  be  submitted  to  the  proper  authorities 
and  used  as  a  basis  for  levying  taxes. 

SEC.  ii.  Require  the  counties  to  formulate  and  provide  for 
the  carrying  out  of  a  four-year  county  building  program  to  pro- 
vide new  buildings  and  other  new  school  property. 

SEC.  12.  Abolish  the  office  of  county  superintendent  as  an 
elective  office  and  place  the  appointment  and  fixing  of  the  salary 
of  the  county  superintendent  in  the  hands  of  the  County  Board 
of  Education  subject  only  to  the  limits  as  to  professional  qualifica- 
tions and  minimum  salary  fixed  by  the  State  Board  of  Education. 

SEC.  13.  Establish  an  amount  not  less  than  that  paid  to  city 
superintendents  in  first  class  city  systems  as  the  minimum  salary 
of  county  superintendents. 

The  office  of  county  superintendent  should  be  thoroughly  professional- 
ized. Nowhere  is  skilled  supervision  more  important  than  in  rural  com- 
munities, owing  to  the  large  numbers  of  untrained  and  inexperienced 
teachers  to  be  found  in  such  communities.  Specific  and  high  professional 
qualifications  should  be  prerequisites  for  eligibility  to  the  office. 

SEC.  14.  Provide  for  every  thirty  rural  teachers  a  supervisor 
or  teacher  helper  of  qualifications  sufficient  to  entitle  said  super- 
visor to  a  salary  not  less  than  that  paid  to  expert  supervisors 
employed  in  first  class  city  school  systems,  appointment  to  be 
made  by  the  county  superintendent  upon  the  basis  of  qualifications 
fixed  by  the  State  Board  of  Education. 

SEC.  15.  Provide  for  a  state  severance  tax  and  a  state  gradu- 
ated income  tax  upon  the  proceeds  of  which  public  schools  and 
other  educational  institutions  shall  have  first  claim. 

SEC.  1 6.  Create  a  state  interim  legislative  educational  budget 
commission  which  shall  prepare  and  recommend  to  the  next  legis- 
lature an  educational  budget. 

SEC.  17.  Provide  for  the  raising  by  state  taxation  of  funds 
sufficient  to  finance  all  educational  projects,  positions,  and  institu- 
tions subsidized  bv  the  state. 


$8     -F^.ET"€HER  H.  SWIFT  AND  FRANCES  K.  DEL  PLAINE 

SEC.  1 8.  Provide  that  state  tax  rates  for  educational  projects 
shall  be  determined  biennially  on  the  basis  of  the  amount  of 
money  required,  in  addition  to  that  available  from  the  endowment 
fund  and  all  other  continuing  sources,  to  provide  adequate  funds 
for  all  educational  projects  to  be  subsidized  by  the  state. 

SEC.  19.  Provide  state  funds  to  grant  special  aid  to  encourage 
consolidation,  transportation,  free  textbooks,  and  employment 
of  teachers,  superintendents,  and  other  school  officers  of  qualifica- 
tions higher  than  the  lawful  minimum,  and  to  subsidize  new  and 
progressive  types  of  educational  effort. 

SEC.  20.  Empower  and  require  the  State  Board  of  Education 
to  establish  and  modify  from  time  to  time,  as  conditions  warrant, 
a  scale  of  educational  and  professional  requirements  for  all 
positions  to  be  subsidized  entirely  or  in  part  by  the  state  and 
a  corresponding  salary  scale  in  which  salaries  paid  shall  vary 
according  to  the  professional  preparation,  experience,  and  class 
of  certificate  of  the  incumbent. 

SEC.  21.  Provide  that  no  moneys  belonging  to  the  perpetual 
school  fund  or  to  any  other  endowment  fund  for  public  schools 
shall  be  invested  in  Minnesota  state  bonds  or  in  any  other  securi- 
ties chargeable  to,  or  dependent  upon,  the  credit  of  the  state  of 
Minnesota. 

SEC.  22.  Provide  for  an  adequate  and  reliable  school  census. 

SEC.  23.  Require  the  State  Department  of  Education  to  pre- 
pare a  uniform  system  of  recording  receipts  and  expenditures, 
and  an  accompanying  handbook  of  detailed  instructions  such  as 
have  been  compiled  by  the  state  departments  of  New  York  and 
Pennsylvania. 

SEC.  24.  Require  the  State  Department  of  Education  to  fur- 
nish free  to  counties  all  forms  for  financial  accounting  and  re- 
porting. 

SEC.  25.  Summarizing  the  most  important  tendency  of  for- 
ward looking  legislation  which  underlies  many  of  the  recom- 
mendations contained  in  the  preceding  sections,  a  tendency  which 
must  be  recognized  and  accepted  before  school  burdens  and  ed- 
ucational opportunities  can  be  equalized  in  any  thoroughgoing 
manner : 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  FINANCE  IN  MINNESOTA**    -    :..50 

Place  upon  the  state  (which  is  the  only  unit  capable  of  equal- 
izing school  burdens  and  educational  opportunities)  the  major 
portion  of  the  burden  of  school  support  by  requiring  the  state  to 
furnish  funds  sufficient  to  pay  the  minimum  wage  to  which  every 
incumbent  of  an  educational  position  is  entitled  by  reason  of  his 
qualifications,  professional  and  otherwise.  This  recommendation 
covers  salaries  of  superintendents,  principals,  teachers,  truant  of- 
ficers, county  superintendents,  assistants,  rural  supervisors,  and 
all  members  of  the  staff  of  the  State  Board  of  Education. 

The  only  important  item  of  expenditures  which  would  be  left  to  the 
local  communities  to  subsidize,  if  this  recommendation  be  adopted,  would 
be  school  buildings,  sites,  equipment,  cost  of  furnishing  repairs  and 

operating  school  buildings,  as  well  as  all  fixed  charges. 

f 

CONCLUSION 

Putting  into  effect  the  recommendations  set  forth  in  the  above 
sections  need  not  require  any  radical  increase  in  school  expendi- 
ture. The  most  important  changes  would  consist  of  distributing 
the  school  revenues  now  produced  within  the  state  of  Minnesota 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  equalize  school  funds  throughout  the  state. 
If  the  money  which  Minnesota  is  now  spending  were  distributed 
in  a  scientific  and  efficient  manner,  the  deplorable  educational 
extremes  now  existing  would  vanish. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


JUL2319S31* 


LD  21-100m-7,'52(A2528sl6)476 


57519 


.505870 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ^A^  1PORNIA  LIBRARY 


